THE prediction of the overthrow of Syria and Israel is now renewed in the form of a symbolical name, to be inscribed on a tablet and attested by two witnesses, and afterwards applied to the Prophet’s new-born son, whose progress as an infant is made the measure of the event, vs. 1-4. It is then foretold that the judgment denounced upon Syria and Israel should extend to Judah, as a punishment for distrust of God and reliance upon human aid, in consequence of which the kingdom should be imminently threatened with destruction, yet delivered for the sake of Immanuel, by whom the strength and wisdom of all enemies should be alike defeated, vs. 5-10. The Messiah himself is then introduced as speaking, warning the prophet and the true believers neither to share in the apprehensions nor to fear the reproach es of the people, but to let Jehovah be an object of exclusive fear and reverence to them, as he would be an occasion of destruction to the unbelievers, from whom the true sense of this revelation was to be concealed, and re stricted to his followers, who, together with the prophet and the Son of God himself, should be for signs and wonders to the multitude, while waiting for the manifestation of his presence, and refusing’to consult any other oracle except the word of God, an authority despised by none but those doomed to the darkness of despair, which is described as settling down upon them, with a sudden intimation, at the close, of a change for the better, especially in reference to that part of the country which had been most afflicted and despised, vs. 11-23. The Hebrew and English text differ here in the division of the chapters. A better arrangement than either would have been to continue the eighth without interruption to the close of what is now the sixth (or seventh) verse of the ninth chapter, where a new division of the prophecy begins.
1. The prediction of the overthrow of Syria and Israel, contained ‘ in ch. 7: 8, 9, is here repeated, and as before in a symbolical form. In order to excite immediate attention, and at the same time to verify the prophecy, Isaiah is required to inscribe an enigmatical name on a large tablet in a legible character, with a view to present exhibition and to subsequent preservation. The name itself includes a prophecy of speedy spoliation. And Jehovah said to me, take thee (or for thyself) a great tablet (i. e. great in proportion to the length of the inscription), and write upon it with a man’s pen (or stylus, i. e. in an ordinary and familiar hand), To Makershalal-hash-baz (i. e. Haste-spoil-quick-prey). The name may also be read as a sentence—Hasten spoil! Prey hastens. (So Cocceius: propera spolium, festinavit direptio.) Others take “-ifitt as an infinitive (either used as such or instead of a preterite) on account of the * prefixed, which *f however, has no more connexion with this than with the other words, being joined to it merely as the first word-in the sentence, just as the English to might be prefixed to an inscription. Here, as in v. 3, Maher-shalalhash-baz is a name, and the exhibition of the tablet, in the temple (Barnes), or the market-place(Ewald), or the prophet’s house (Knobel), was intended to suggest the question, who is meant? It is therefore less correct to say that the’inscription is afterwards transferred to the child, than that the name of the child is anticipated here. These four words are not merely the head ing 6r title of the writing (Barnes), but the writing itself. The modern lexicographers explain ‘ph not as a derivative of bbs, to roll, and a synonyme of filb^, a volume, but as a derivative of fib a, to polish, and as meaning a tablet of metal, or, as Knobel supposes, of wood covered with wax. inn, the stylus used in writing on such tablets. Human is here explained by Hendewerk as meaning common or ordinary in opposition to divine, but by others more probably in opposition to a mode of writing only known to some, and not to men in general; whether the allusion be to a sacred character (Henderson), or simply to the letters used in books as distinguished from those used in common life (Ewald). Both the kind of writing and the size of the tablet (admitting larger characters), have reference to its being legible, so that he may run that rec:deth it. (Hab. 2: 2.)
2. In order to preclude all suspicion of its having been uttered after the event, the prophecy is not only recorded, but attested by two witnesses. And I (Jehovah) will take, to witness for me credible witnesses, to wit, Uriah the priest, and Zechariah, son of Jeberechiah. These were not to be witnesses of the prophet’s marriage (Luther, Grotius), but of his having written and exhibited the prophecy so long before the event. Uriah is pro bably the same who connived at the king’s profanation of the temple (2 Kings, 16: 10-16). The word d^EM does not relate to their true character or standing in the sight of God, but to their credit with the people, especially perhaps with the king, in which view, as well as on account of his official rank, Uriah was a very suitable witness. The same consideration makes it not improbable that the Zechariah mentioned here was the father-in-law of Ahaz (2 Kings, 18: 2. 2 Chr. 29: 1), perhaps the same that is mentioned as a Levite of the family of Asaph (2 Chr. 29: 13), The Zechariah mentioned in 2 Chron. 26: 5, seems to have died before Uzziah. Zechariah the son of Jehoiada was put to death between the porch and the altar (Matt. 23: 35) long before this, in the reign of Joash (2 Chr. 24: 20, 21). Zechariah the Prophet was the son of Berechiah, but he lived after the Babylonish exile. The Rabbins and Lightfoot give to d^s the emphatic sense of martyrs (JKO$*v£t?), witnesses for the truth, and suppose Uriah to be the person who prophesied against Judah, and was put to death by Jehoiakim, about 130 years after the date of this prediction. But such an attestation would have been wholly irrelevant and useless. The Vulgate takes the verb as a preterite (et adhibui mihi testes) and Gesenius, Maurer, Knobel, read accordingly ftwxj with Vav conversive. The Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito make it imperative (jjtd^ivgds fjtoi noirfiov), and Hitzig accordingly reads rtn^rj. Gesenius formerly preferred an indirect or subjunctive construction, which is still retained by Henderson, and that I should take as witnesses. The true construction is no doubt the obvious one,- and I will cite as witnesses (Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit)—God being still the speaker, and the matter being one in which the prophet was concerned only as his representative, so that the ascription of the act to God himself is not only admissible but necessary. This construction also accounts best for the paragogic form of the verb, as expressing strong determination or fixed purpose.
3. The significant name, before inscribed upon the tablet, is now ap plied to the Prophet’s new-born son, that the child, as well as the inscription, might remind all who saw them of the prophecy. The execution of the previous command is here, as in many other cases, tacitly included in the record of the command itself. (Vide supra, ch. 7: 4.) A.nd I approached unto the Prophetess, and she conceived and bare a son, and Jehovah said to me, Call hisgname Maher-shalal-hash-baz. Calvin’s supposition that this passed in vision is entirely gratuitous. This name, like tmmanuelj may be understood as simply descriptive or symbolical, but its actual imposition is inferred by most interpreters from verse 18, where the Prophet speaks of himself and his children as signs and wonders in Israel, with reference, as they suppose, to the names Shear-jashub and Makershalal-hash-baz. The four ancient versions all translate the name, and all, except the Targum, with some variation from the rendering in v. 1. Most of the later German writers adopt Luther’s version, Raubebald Eilebeute, but instead of the first word Ewald has Schnellraub. The pluperfect construction, I had approached, etc., given by Junius, Gesenius, and others, is not only needless but. according to Ewald, Maurer and Hitzig, ungrammatical. The strange opinion of Tertullian, Basil, Cyril and Jerome, that the Prophetess is the Virgin Mary, and that this verse is the language of the Holy Spirit, though adopted by CEcolampadius and others, is rejected even by Thomas Aquinas. The Prophetess is probably so called, not because she was inspired (Grotius), or because she was to give the name Immanuel (Hendewerk), or because she bore a part in this prophetical transaction (Calvin), but because she was a prophet’s wife, as queen usually means a royal consort, not a queen suo jure. A remarkable series of prophetic names, imposed upon three children, is recorded in the first chapter of Hosea.
4. It is not merely by its name that the child is connected with the prophecy. The date of the event is determined by a reference to the in fant’s growth, as in the case of Immanuel. For before the child shall know (how) to cry my father and my mother, one (or they indefinitely) shall take away the wealth of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria before the Icing of Assyria, i. e. into his presence, to deliver it to him (Gesenius), or in triumphal procession (Calvin), or before him, i. e. before he marches homeward himself (Hendewerk), or simply in his presence, that is by his command and under his direction. The construction of xia? is indefinite, so that there is no need of supplying srjrp as the subject. The time fixed is that of the child’s capacity not to recognize its parents, or to talk, but to utter the simple labial sounds by which in Hebrew as in many other languages father and mother are expressed. The time denoted has been fixed by Vitringa and Rosenmiiller at three years, by Junius and most later writers at one. But this very difference of judgment seems to show that the description was intended to be somewhat indefinite, equivalent perhaps to our familiar phrase a year or two, within which time we have reason to believe that the event occurred. Gesenius alleges that the prophecy in reference to Israel was not fulfilled for eighteen years (2 Kings 17: 6), to which Hengstenberg replies that Samaria is here put for the kingdom and not for the capital city. But even if the name be strictly understood, there is no reason to doubt that Sa maria was plundered by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15: 29) although not de stroyed, which idea is in fact not conveyed by the terms of the description. ^n properly means strength, but ‘is specifically applied to military strength and to wealth, which last is the meaning here. The carrying away of its wealth does not necessarily imply any thing more than such a spoiling of the capital as might be expected in the course of a brief but successful invasion. Barnes’s construction of the second clause—’ Damascus shall be borne away as regards its riches ‘—is inconsistent with the form of the original.
5. And Jehovah added to speak to me again (or further) saying, Here, as in ch. 7: 10, an interval of time may be assumed. Hendewerk supposes that in the mean time the Assyrians had approached and the invaders been compelled to withdraw from Judah.
6. The Assyrian invasion is now represented as a punishment of Judah for distrusting the divine protection and seeking that of the Assyrians themselves. The immediate relief thus secured was to be followed by a worse calamity produced by those in whom they now confided. Because this people (Judah, so called in token of divine displeasure) hath forsaken (or rejected with contempt) the waters of Shiloah (or Siloam, the only perennial fountain of Jerusalem, here used as a symbol of the divine protection) that go softly (or flow gently, unaccompanied by noise or danger), and (because there is) joy with respect to Rezin and the son of Remaliah (i. e. because the Jews are exulting in the retreat of their invaders, caused by the approach of the Assyrians), therefore, etc., the apodosis of the sentence being given in the next verse. Steudel supposes the invasion itself to be represented by the waters of Siloam, and contrasted with a worse invasion yet to come. Because they despised the gentle fountain, God would bring upon them a mighty river. But to this there are several objections. 1. The fountain of Siloam would hardly have been used as the emblem of a foreign invasion merely because weak and unsuccessful. 2. The verb exa, does not mean simply to despise, but to reject with contempt something once esteemed or entitled to esteem, and is therefore inapplicable to an invasion. 3. God himself had taught them to despise it (ch. 7: 4), and would not therefore have assigned their doing so as a reason for the punish ment to be inflicted. Calvin understands by the waters of Siloam the mild and peaceful government of God, compared with the powerful military sway of foreign monarchs. Because the Jews despised their own advantages, and admired the conquests of Pekah and Rezin, therefore God would cause them to experience the hardships of Assyrian domination. But the only feelings which the Jews can be supposed to have experienced with respect to their invaders, are fear at their approach, and joy at their departure. That they rejoiced at their success, is a gratuitous assumption contradicted by the history. The same objection lies, with almost equal force, against the supposition of Gesenius, Maurer, Ewald, and Knobel, that this sympathy with the invaders is not asserted of the whole nation, but of a disaffected party who rejected the authority of the family of David (the waters of Siloam) and rejoiced in the successes of the enemy. However plausible such a sup position may appear, it is not to be assumed without necessity, or in preference to an explanation which involves no such imaginary facts. Henderson and others understand by this people, the kingdom of the ten tribes, whose apostasy from the true religion, and their rejection of the theocracy, are here assigned as reasons for the evils threatened. A Jewish prophet, speaking or writing to the Jews, would of course be understood to mean by this people those whom he addressed. It may be said indeed that this has reference to the mention of Ephraim in the foregoing context (v. 4). But this would prove too much, by requiring Syria to be included in the charge of rejecting the waters of Siloam (Umbreit), in which case we must either suppose the words to be used in a twofold sense, or take &NE in that of simply despising, which is inadmissible. The same objection lies, in a less degree, against the opinion of Barnes and others, that by this people we are to understand Israel and Judah as a race. This is favoured by the fact that.both these kingdoms are included in the threatenings of the subsequent context. But the exclusion of Syria is still more unnatural if Ephraim is included. The true sense seems to be that given by Hitzig, except that he regards toitoa as an.incorrect orthography for &io», the infinitive of &OE to melt, to be dissolved with fear. ’ Because this people has rejected the waters of Siloam, gently flowing, and is afraid of Rezin and the son of Remaliah,’ etc. This explanation is unnecessary, as the same people who were terrified by the approach of the invaders would of course rejoice in their departure. The particle raj simply denotes the direct occasion of the joy. The more definite idea of rejoicing over is suggested by the context. For a full description of the fountain of Siloam, and the localities connected with it, se£ Robinson’s Palestine, vol. I. pp. 501-505.
7. Therefore (because the people had thus ceased to trust in the divine protection, and rejoiced in the success of their application to Assyria), behold (as if the event were actually present), Jehovah (is) bringing up upon them the waters of the river (i. e. the Euphrates, as an emblem of the Assyrian power), its strong and many waters (here contrasted with the gently flowing waters of Siloam), to wit, the king of Assyria and all his glory (with particular reference to military strength and display), and it (the river) shall come up over all its channels and go over all its banks, which may either mean that it shall transcend its usual limits, or that after submerging Israel, it shall overflow into Judah also. In favour of this last interpretation is the language of the next verse, and the fact that otherwise the punishment of Ephraim or the ten tribes is not expressly mentioned.— The copulative conjunction is used by a common Hebrew idiom to introduce the apodosis of the sentence. The figure of an overflowing river is peculiarly appropriate, not only as affording a striking antithesis to the fountain mentioned in the sixth verse, but because ^nsrt is often used absolutely to denote the Euphrates, the great river of the Assyrian and Babylonian empires. Clericus supposes that it here denotes the Tigris, as a river of As syria proper. But according to the usage of the Greek and Roman writers, Assyria extended to the bank of the Euphrates, which Arrian describes as rising above its banks and overflowing T^V y\v ‘Adtivgiav. The beauty of the metaphor is rendered still more striking by the frequent allusions, both in ancient and modern writers, to the actual inundations of this river. Here, as in ch. 7: 17, 18, the figures are explained in literal expressions by the Prophet himself. Here too the explanation has been questioned as a gloss on grounds exclusively rhetorical. But every repetition, as Ewald well observes, makes the hypothesis of an interpolation more and more improbable. Its alleged incongruity, if it did not exclude it in the first place, must have struck the most uncritical reader on its second or third recurrence. Some suppose an allusion in iTbs to the pomp of the oriental kings in their marches. But this is not known to have been an Assyrian usage, and the supposition is at least unnecessary. Some understand by its channels and its banks the channels and banks of Judah; but this construction agrees neither with the proper meaning of the words nor with the metaphor of which they form a part. According to Junius, the overflowing of the banks was designed to represent the king of Assyria’s violation of his own enga^ements in oppressing those for whose relief he had come forth.
8. And it (the river) shall pass over (from Syria and Israel) into Judah, overflow and pass through (so as nearly to submerge it), to the neck shall it -reach (but not above the head), and the spreadings of its wings shall be the filling of thy land, O immanuel! The English version disturbs the metaphor by using the personal pronoun he so as to refer this verse directly to the king, and not to the river which represented him. It also makes qbn mean to pass through, which is really expressed by ias, while the for mer verb denotes a change of direction, and subjoins a threatening, against Judah to the threatening against Israel. By the neck, the Targum under stands Jerusalem, in which it is followed by Calvin, Junius, Piscator, Vitringa, Henderson and Barnes, the last of whom supposes a distinct allusion to the elevated site of -the Holy City. Most probably, however, the expression was intended to denote nothing more than the imminency of the danger by figures borrowed from a case of drowning, the head alone being left above the water. Most writers suppose the figure of a stream to be exchanged in the last clause for that of a bird, or for the description of an army; but Umbreit and Knobel understand wings to be used here, as often elsewhere, in the sense of sides or lateral extremities, and applied to the river itself. Some of the Jewish writers make ^W3?$S a proposition, God (w) with us, in favour of which is the analogy of y. 9 below, and the fact that the words are separately written in most manuscripts. In favour of making it a proper name is the analogy of ch. 7: 16, and the pronoun of the second person joined to the preceding word, thy land, Immanuel! Some of the Rabbins make the Prophet the object of address,l *thy land (O Isaiah).’ But this is arbitrary, and renders the connexion of the clauses very harsh. If this had been the meaning, the Prophet would probably have said, f *but God is with us.’ Those who regard Immanuel as the name of a contemporary child, understand by thy land thy native land (as in Gen. 12: 1, Jon. 1: 8), and to the question why this -child should be specially addressed, reply because he was a sign to the people, and his name prophetic. But as we have seen that Immanuel is the Messiah, thy land must mean the land belonging to thee, thy dominion; or rather both ideas are included. Thus understood, this brief apostrophe involves a prayer and promise of deliverance, acsi dixisset terra nihitominus erit tua o Immanuel! (Calvin). • •
9. He now turns to the enemies of Judah and assures them of the failure of their hostile plans. The prediction, as in ch. 6: 9, is clothed in the form of an ironical command or exhortation. Be wicked (i. e. indulge your malice, do your worst) and be broken (disappointed and confounded), and (that not only Syria and Israel, but) give ear all remote parts of the earth (whoever may attack the chosen people), gird yourselves (i. e. arm and equip yourselves for action) and be broken, gird yourselves and be broken (the repetition implying the certainty of the event). The first verb (w) has been variously derived from nsn, s«n, and ssn, and explained to mean associate yourselves (Targum, Vulgate, etc.), break and be broken (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, etc.), make a noise or rage (Henderson). This last is given by Gesenius in the second edition of his German version; in the first, and in his latest Lexicons, he gives the verb its usual sense of being evil or malignant, which is also expressed by Luther (seyd bose ihr Volker!) It is here equivalent to do your worst. Seeker and Lowth, on the authority of the Septuagint, read isn know ye, corresponding to i^TBtn hear ye. Hendewerk and Knobel suppose Syria and Israel to be exclusively ad dressed; but this is directly contradicted by the second clause. The fail ure or disappointment threatened is of course that of their ultimate design to overthrow the kingdom of Judah, and does not exclude the possibility of partial and temporary successes.
10. Not only their strength but their sagacity should be confounded. Devise a plan, and it shall be defeated (nullified or brought to nought), speak a word (whether a proposition or an order), and it shall not stand (or be carried into execution), for (Immanuel) God (is) with us. Junius and Tremellius make the last word a proper name, as in v. 8—’ Loquimini verbum et non existet, nam Himmanuelis (existet verbum).’ This construction is too forced to be even called ingenious. The truth is that even as a name Immanuel contains a proposition, and that here this proposition is distinctly announced, but with a designed allusion to the person whom the name describes. As if he had said, •’ the assurance of your safety is the great truth expressed by the name of your deliverer, to wit, that God is with us.’ The mere retention of the Hebrew word could not convey its sense in this connexion to the English reader.
11. The triumphant apostrophe in v. 10 is now justified by an ap peal to the divine authority. I have reason to address our enemies in this tone, for thus said Jehovah to me in strength of hand (i. e. when his hand was strong upon me, when I was under the influence of inspiration), and instructed me away from walking in the way of this people (i. e. warned me not to follow the example of the unbelieving Jews). When one is. spoken of in Scripture as inspired, it is said not only that the spirit was upon him (Ezek. 11: 5), but also that the hand of Jehovah was upon him (Ezek. 1:3. 3: 22. 33: 32. 37: 1), and in one case at least that it was strong upon him (Ezek 3: 14). Hence strength of hand may have the sense of inspiration, and the whole phrase here employed be equivalent in meaning to the New Testament expressions lv nvsvuavi (Rev. 1: 10), iv IxGTctGei (Acts 11: 5), lv Svvapei xcu yrvsv^an ayity (1 Thess. 1: 5). Henderson is right in saying that the translation taking me by the hand can not be justified, but wrong in representing it as “ the rendering of our common version,” the text of which has with a strong hand, and the mar gin in strength of hand, the literal translation. ^-ntP is explained by Gesenius as a future Kal of unusual form, by Ewald as a preterite Piel with an unusual union-vowel. Gesenius connects it with the phrase before it (‘when his hand was strong upon me, and he warned me,’ etc). Others more probably with -ras fib (‘ thus spake Jehovah and warned me,’ etc.). The author of this communication is supposed by some interpreters to be the Son of God, for reasons which will be explained below.
12. The words of God himself are now recorded. Saying, ye shall not call conspiracy (or treason) every thing which this people calleth conspiracy (or treason), and its fear ye shall not fear nor be afraid. ittij?, according to etymology and usage, is a treasonable combination or conspiracy. It is elsewhere constantly applied to such a combination on the part of subjects against their rulers (2 Kings 11: 14. 12: 21. 14: 19. 15: 30). It is not strictly applicable, therefore, to the confederacy of Syria and Israel against Judah (Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Henderson, etc.), nor to that of Ahaz with the king of Assyria (Barnes, etc.). It would be more appropriate to factious combinations among the Jews themselves (Aben Ezra, Kimchi), if there were any trace of these in history. The correct view of the passage seems to be this. The unbelieving fears of the people led them to seek foreign aid. From this they were dissuaded by the Prophet and his followers, who regarded it as a violation of their duty to Jehovah. This opposition, like the conduct of Jeremiah during the- Babylonian siege, was regarded by the king and his adherents as a treasonable combination to betray them to their enemies. But God himself commands the prophet and the true believers not to be affected by this false reproach, not to regard the cry of treason or conspiracy, nor share in the real or pretended terrors of the unbelievers.
13. Jehovah of Hosts, him shall ye sanctify.(i. e. regard and treat as a Holy God, and as the Holy One of Israel), and he shall be your fear, and he your dread, i. e. the object of these feelings. If they felt as they ought towards God, as supreme and almighty, and as their own peculiar God, with whom they were united in a national covenant, they could not so distrust him as to be alarmed at the approach of any earthly danger. •p^SE may either be an active participle (that which terrifies you) or a verbal noun resembling &Oin in its mode of derivation. The collocation of the words makes the sentence more emphatic. Him shall ye fear is substantially equivalent to Him alone shall ye fear. Thus explained, the passage is at once a condemnation of the terror inspired by the approach of the two kings, and of the application, which it had occasioned, to Assyria for aid against them.
14. And he (Jehovah) shall be for (or become) a holy thing (an object to be sanctified) and for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence (i. e. a stone to strike against and stumble over) to the two houses of Israel (Ephraim and Judah), for a gin (or trap) and for « snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem. tti^a is by many understood to mean a sanctuary, in the specific sense, or with the accessory idea, of a refuge or asylum (Paulus, Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Winer, Maurer, Hendewerk, Barnes, Ewald, Umbreit, Henderson). But although the temples of the gods were so regarded by the Greeks and Romans, no such usage seems to have prevailed among the Christians till the time of Constantine (Bingham’s Orig. Eccles. vm. 11,-1). As to the Jews, the only case which has been cited to establish such a practice seems to prove the contrary. So far was the altar from protecting Joab, that he was not even dragged away but killed upon the spot (2 Kings 2: 28). J. D. Michaelis supposes an allusion to the stone which Jacob called Bethel or the residence of God (Gen. 28: 19), the same object being here described as a sanctuary and as a stone of stumbling. But although this idea may be included, the word has pro bably a wider meaning, and was meant to bear the same relation to Wipn (in v. 13) that ama bears to iK^n and -piya to ixiisr. God was the only proper object to be dreaded, feared, and sanctified, i. e. regarded as a holy being in the widest and the most emphatic sense. Thus explained, the Hebrew ttfrp)*? corresponds almost exactly to the Greek TO ayiov, the term applied to Christ by the angel who announced his birth (Luke 1: 35). In 1 Peter 2: 7, where this very passage is applied to Christ, jj z/pj seems to be employed as an equivalent to tti’npa as here used. To others he is a stone of stumbling, but to you who believe he is // r^t//, something precious, something honoured, something looked upon as holy. The same application of the words is made by Paul in Rom. 9: 33. These quotations seem to show that the prophet’s words have an extensive import, and are not to be restricted either to his own times or the time of Christ. The doctrine of the text is, that even the most glorious exhibitions of God’s holiness, i. e. of his infinite perfection, may occasion the destruction of the unbeliever. The most signal illustration of this general truth was that afforded in the advent of the Saviour. It was frequently exemplified, however, in the interval, and one of these exemplifications was afforded by the conduct of the unbelieving Jews in the reign of Ahaz, to whom the only power that could save them was converted by their own unbelief into a stone of stumbling and a rock of offence. The same idea is then expressed by another simple and familiar figure, that of a snare or trap. Both figures naturally suggest the idea of inadvertence and unforeseen ruin. The two houses of Israel are not the two schools of Hillel and Shammai, or the kingdom of Israel and the faction that favoured it in Judah, both which are rabbinical conceits, but the two rival kingdoms of Judah and Ephraim, here put together to describe the whole race or nation of Israel. The sense is not that Jehovah would be sanctified by Judah, and become a stumbling-block to Israel; but that to some, in either house or family these opposite events would happen. The inhabitants of Jerusalem are distinctly mentioned as the most conspicuous and influential members of the nation, just as Jerusalem itself is sometimes mentioned in connexion with Judah, which really included it. (Vide supra ch. 1: ].)
15. This verse completes the threatening by an explicit declaration that Jehovah would not only be a stumbling-block and snare to the 10 houses of Israel, but that many should actually fall and be ensnared and broken. And many shall stumble over them (the stone and snare)—or among them (the children of Israel)—and fall, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. Gesenius and most of the later writers refer 02 to the stone, rock, etc.; but Ewald and most of the older writers to the people. The first construction points out more distinctly the occasion of the threatened ruin, the last the persons whom it should befall; the general sense remains the same in either case.
16. Bind up the testimony, seal the law, in my disciples. These are not the words of the Prophet speaking in his own person, but a command addressed to him by God, or as some suppose by the Messiah, the tL;inp^ mentioned in the foregoing verse. Vitringa explains ^ as the imperative of nsis to form, delineate, inscribe. The command will then be to inscribe the revelation in the hearts of the disciples. It is commonly agreed, however, that the root is ^nst to bind, and that the prophet is commanded to tie up a roll or volume, and to seal it, thereby closing it. By law and testimony here we may either understand the prophetic inscription in v. 1, or the-whole preceding context,’considered as included in the general sense of revelation, as God’s testimony to the truth and as a law or declaration of his will. The disciples, or those taught of God, are supposed by some to be Uriah and Zechariah, the two witnesses named in v. 2; by others the sons of the prophets or literal disciples of Isaiah; but it probably means the better portion of the people, those truly enlightened because taught of God (ch. 54: 13), to whom the knowledge of this revelation, or at least of its true meaning, was to be restricted. It is probable, therefore, that the preposition before ^xb does not mean to or for or with or through. but either among or in, i. e. in their minds or hearts. The act described is not that of literally binding and sealing up a material record, but that of spiritually closing and depositing the revelation of God’s will in the hearts of those who were able and willing to receive it, with allusion at the same time to its concealment from all others. Kimchi regards these as the words of the Prophet—nothing now remains but to bind and seal the testimony. This, however, even if we make is an infinitive, is a very harsh construction.
17. And I (the Messiah) will wait for Jehovah that hideth hu face from the house of Jacob, and will expect him. Most writers make these the words of the Prophet; but since he is addressed in the verse preceding, without any intimation of a change of speaker here, and since the next verse is quoted in Heb. 2: 13, as the words of the Messiah, it seems better to assume, with Cocceius and Henderson, that throughout this passage the Messiah is the speaker. The phrase to wait upon has changed its meaning since the date of the English version, the prominent idea being now that of service and attendance, not as of old that of expectation, which is the meaning of the Hebrew verb. God’s hiding his face from the house of Jacob implies not only outward troubles but the withholding of divine illumination, indirectly threatened in the verse preceding. The house of Jacob is the whole race of Israel, perhaps with special reference to Judah. The thing to be expected is the fulness of time when the Messiah, no longer revealed merely to a few, should openly appear. For a time the import of God’s promises shall be concealed from the majority, and during that inter val Messiah shall wait patiently until the set time has arrived.
18. Behold, I and the children which Jehovah hath given me (are) for signs and for wonders in Israel from Jehovah of Hosts, the (One) divelling in Mount Zion. Luther supplies a verb in the first clause—’ Behold, here am I and the children, etc.’ Augusti repeats a verb from the preceding verse— ‘land my children trust in the Lord.’ Most writers supply are after given me—{ *I and my children are for signs, etc.’ *From Jehovah, i. e. sent and appointed by him. Of the whole verse there are two distinct interpretations. I. According to Kimchi, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius, Ewald, Barnes, and others, Isaiah is the speaker, and the children meant are his two sons Shear-jashub and Maher-shalal-hash-baz, to which some add Immanuel. As all these names, and that of the Prophet himself, are significant, it is supposed that for this reason he and his children are said to be signs and wonders, personified prophecies to Israel, from Jehovah, who had caused the names to be imposed. 2. According to Henderson and many older writers, these are the words of the Messiah, and the children are his spiritual seed (Isai. 53: 10), whom the Father had given him (John 6: 37, 39. 10: 29. 17: 6, 7, 9, 11, 12). The great argument in favour of this last interpretation is the application of the verse to Christ by Paul (Heb. 2: 13), not as an illustration but an argument, a proof, that Christ partook of the same nature with the persons called his children and his brethren. It is true that many who regard Isaiah as the speaker suppose him to have been a type of Christ in this transaction. But a double sense ought not to be assumed where a single one is perfectly consistent with the context, and sufficient to explain all apparent contradictions, as in this case, where admitting that the Messiah is the speaker, we have no ellipsis to supply, and no occasion to resort to the hypothesis either of a type or an accommodation. It is not necessary, however, to restrict the terms, with Henderson, to the period of the advent, and to our Saviour’s personal followers. Even before he came in the flesh, he and his disciples, i. e. all who looked for his appearing, were signs and wonders, objects of contemptuous astonishment, and at the same time pledges of the promise.
19. And when they (indefinitely any one, or definitely the unbelievers) shall say to you (the disciples and children of Messiah, who is still speaking), seek unto (i. e. consult as an oracle) the spirits (or the spiritmasters, those who have subject or familiar spirits at command) and to the wizards.(wise or knowing ones), the chirpers and the mutterers (alluding to the way in which the heathen necromancers invoked their spirits, or uttered their responses), should not a people seek to (or consult) its God, for the living (i. e. in behalf of the living should it resort) to the dead? Grotius explains the last clause as a continuation of the speech of the idolaters—c Consult familiar spirits; ought not a people to consult its gods?’ But since Jehovah was the God of Israel, such an argument would defeat itself. It is better to regard this clause as the reply of the believing Jews to those who tempted them. Ewald and others give is a the meaning of instead—( *Should a people consult the dead instead of the living God?’ It is more consistent with the usage of the language to take the preposition in the sense of *for, i. e. for the benefit or *in behalf of. i *When you, my disciples, are invited by superstitious sinners to consult pretended wizards, consider (or reply) that as the heathen seek responses from their gods, so you ought to consult Jehovah, and not be guilty of the folly of consulting senseless idols or dead men for the instruction of the living.’ Henderson supposes the Prophet to be speaking in his own person; but if the Messiah is the speaker in v. 18, it is gratuitous and therefore arbitrary to suppose another speaker to be introduced without any intimation of the change.
20. Instead of resorting to these unprofitable and forbidden sources, the disciples of Jehovah are instructed to resort to the law and to the testimony (i. e. to divine revelation, considered as a system of belief and as a rule of duty)—if they speak (i. e. if any speak) not according to this word (an other name for the revealed will of God), it is he to whom there is no dawn, or morning (i. e. no relief from the dark night of calamity).—The first clause is elliptical. Cocceius alone connects it immediately with what precedes, and understands b as meaning besides—’ in addition to the law and the testimony which we have already.’ Others supply a new verb, return, adhere, come, go, etc. It is best, however, to repeat vo*ft from the preceding verse, especially as this verb is elsewhere followed by b in the same sense. (See 2 Chron. 17: 3, 4. Comp. Job 10: 6.)—Piscator violates the accents by separating xb ^DX from “nax\ (If not (i. e. if they will not come to the law and the testimony), let them say,’ etc. Junius takes xb ex as equivalent to xbn, which it never is unless another interrogation precedes. Knobel refers to the xbn in v. 19; but this is too remote, and is moreover separated from xb ex by the first clause of v. 20. Kimchi, Abarbenel, Cocreius, Hitzig, Maurer, make xb EX the common elliptical formula of swearing —’ if they will not say,’ i. e. they surely will say. Ewald adopts the same construction, and explains the verse to mean that when they are reduced to extremity (as those who have no dawn) they will begin too late to speak according to this word, i. e. join in the appeal to the law and to the testimony, which they now despise. Umbreit modifies this interpretation by giving ex its strict conditional meaning, and continuing the sentence through the next verse—’ If they do not thus speak, to whom there is no morning, then they must pass through the land, etc.’—W.£X, which is properly the relative pronoun, is: omitted by the Vulgate, and explained in the English ver sion and by Barnes as a causal particle. DeDieu, Vitringa, and some others make it a particle of asseveration,,certainly, surely; Gesenius the sign of the apodosis, then there is no dawn to them; J. H. Michaelis, a substitute for 13, but in the sense of that, ‘ know ye that.’ So the Dutch ver sion, ’ it shall come to pass that.’ All these are needless and therefore in admissible departures from the ordinary usage. Of those who give the word its proper meaning as a relative pronoun, some refer it to the noun immediately preceding—this word which (Lowth)—others to the people or to some individual among them—they who have or he who has no morn ing (Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit). But the best construction seems to be that of Hendewerk, who supplies the substantive verb before the relative, ’ they are one who has no morning,’ or better still, ‘ it is he who has (or they who have) no morning.’ None can speak inconsistently with God’s word—or, none can refuse to utter this word, viz. to the law and to the testimony —but one whom God has abandoned—” If our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost.” (2 Cor. 4: 3.) Quern Deus vult perdere prius de-‘ mentat. Lowth renders “ino) obscurity, from the analogy of inti) black and ninflj Slackness. J. H. Michaelis, Dathe, and Augusti, make it equivalent to the Arabic ^, meaning magic—’ His word in which there is no magic,’ i. e. no deception. But the Hebrew word is never used in this sense. Calvin, the English version, Barnes and others, give it the general sense of light—’ it is because there is no light (i. e. knowledge or sound judgment) in them.’ But according to usage, the word means specifically morning-light, the dawn of day succeeding night, and is so rendered by the Vulgate (matutina lux), Luther (Morgenrothe), and most modern writers..By this Vi tringa understands the morning of the resurrection, and J. H. Michaelis the epiphany of Christ. But as night is a common figure for calamity, the dawn will naturally signify its termination, the return of better times. (See ch. 58: 8. 47: 11. Job 11: 17.) They may be said to have no dawn, for whom there is nothing better in reserve.
21. And they (the people) shall pass through it (the land) hardly bestead (i. e. distressed) and hungry-; and it shall be (or come to pass) that when they are hungry they shall fret themselves., and curse their king and their God, and shall look upward. Those interpreters who make the whole of the preceding verse conditional, explain the 1 at the beginning of this as the sign of the apodosis—’ if they speak not, etc. then shall they pass, etc.’ So J. D. Michaelis, Dathe, and Augusti. The latter sup plies people as the subject of iss; Lowth and the Dutch Version, every one of them; but this is unnecessary. The verbs, though singular in form, like •ft in the preceding verse, refer to the subject of the plural snaa^. Jerome repeats in 85 as the subject of 152 (lux pertransibit) light shall pass through the land, but not continue in it.—Through it, not the condition just de scribed (Schroeder), nor the law. (either in the sense of searching or in that of transgressing it), nor the earth or the gentile part of it (as some of the Jews explain it), nor Zion mentioned in v. 18 (Cocceius), but the land of Judah, which though not expressly mentioned till the next verse, is tacitly referred to by a common Hebrew idiom. (See Ps. 68: 15. 87: 1.) Grotius repeats his favourite suggestion, that the Prophet pointed to the ground when he said fta, so that.the gesture and the word together meant this land —•”‘tijps is not hardened in a moral sense, but hardly treated or distressed, as appears from the addition of -9i. This last is not expressive of bodily hunger (Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer), nor of spiritual famine (Cocceius); nor is it a mere figure for the absence of all comfort and tranquillity of mind (Vitringa), but a term implying destitution both of temporal and spiritual good (J. H. Michaelis). Calvin, Lowth, and Barnes,understand w)Sj5nn as expressing self-reproach or anger with themselves; but this is not consistent with the subsequent description of their desperate impenitence. The reflexive form, which.occurs nowhere else, more probably denotes to excite one’s self to anger. His king is not his earthly sovereign, the king of Judah (Grotius), of Judah or Israel as the case might be (Hitzig), or his idol, particularly Moloch or Milcom, names derived from 7}^. (Targum, Calvin, Junius), but Jehovah considered as the king of Israel. So too “H^s is not his false god, his idol, but the God whom he was bound to serve, his God, who at the same time was his king (Henderson). As the verb to curse does not elsewhere take the preposition a as a connective, Cocceius proposes to translate. the phrase he shall curse by his Icing and by his God, by which he seems to understand the conduct of the Jews, who at one time cursed Caesar in Jehovah’s name, and at another time rejected Christ saying. We have no king but Caesar! Thus they alternately cursed their king in God’s name, and cursed God in their king’s. The act of looking up is by some regarded as a sign of penitence or of conversion from idols to the true God; but this is inconsistent with the terms of the next verse. Junius, Piscator, and the Dutch annotators, connect it with the cursing as an accompanying gesture—’ they shall curse their king and their god, looking up.’ But this clause is really in close connexion with the first of the next verse, and both together must be understood as indicating utter perplexity and absolute despair of help from God or man, from heaven or earth, from above or below. • 4’
22. And to the earth he shall look, and behold distress and darkness, dimness of anguish, and into darkness (he shall be) driven—or, the dimness of anguish and of darkness is dispelled. Heaven and earth are here opposed to one another, as sea and land are in ch. 5: 30. Distress and darkness are here identified, as distress and light are there contrasted. Junius and Hender son explain qwB as a participle, corresponding to rrnjE in the last clause (darkened with distress, driven into gloom); but there is no such participial form. Cocceius explains it as’a noun denoting the dizziness and dimness of sight produced by great distress (vertigo arctationis), which may also be the meaning of the Septuagint version (<7xoro£ wore py (SiUVrm). The true sense of the Hebrew word is outward and inward gloom, distress of circumstances and despair of mind. It is separated from what follows by Calvin (caligo, angustia) and Barnes (gloom, oppression), but is really a construct form governing hj^x. As the latter originally signifies pressure or compression, Gesenius explains the phrase to mean darkness of compression, i. e. dense or compact darkness. But n^x is here (as in Isai. 30: 6. Prov. 1: 27) a synonyme of rrst, both denoting straitened circumstances and a correspond ing state of mind.—The Peshito translates rrnja as an active verb, and the Vulgate as an active participle (caligo persequens). The Targum, Cocceius, and Vitringa, suppose the passive participle to be here used as an abstract noun (caligo, impulsio). Saadias, Munster, Barnes, and others, make n^ia an epithet of r&fis (‘ obscuritas impulsa,’ c deepened darkness’), but the latter word is feminine. Lowth as usual cuts the knot by proposing to read either ^£S or nmao, and Kocher by taking the latter as a neuter noun in apposition with the former. Jarchi, Kimchi, Calvin, Junius, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Ewald, and others, refer irna^ to the people or the person who is the subject of the verb w”1^, and either supply a preposition before nbfi«, or explain it as an accusative after a verb of motion. The meaning will then be thrust or driven into darkness. The objections to this construction are, first, the necessity of supplying both a verb and preposition, and secondly, the unusual collocation of the words, msa nbsx for nbsx ^ ms-a. On the other hand, it is strongly recommended by the analogy of Jer. 23: 12, where the same idea is expressed by the union of the sameverb and noun. Another construction is the one proposed by J. D. Michaelis, who connects ITHSE with qisn, and puts the latter in construction not only with npix but also with sibax—< the dimness of anguish and of gloom is dissipated.’ This construction is recommended by its freedom from grammatical anomalies, and by its rendering the use of ^3 at the beginning of the next verse altogether natural. The objections to it are, that it violates the accents; that it^makes the Prophet speak of the darkness of darkness (but see Exod. 10: 22); and that the transition from the threatening to the pro mise is, on this supposition, too abrupt. Either of the two constructions last proposed may be preferred without materially affecting the interpretation of the passage. Hitzig modifies that of Michaelis by taking the last word separately—it is dispelled!
23. This darkness is.to be dispelled—/or (there shall) not (be) darkness (forever) to her who is now distressed (literally, to whom there is distress). The present calamity, or that just predicted, is not to be perpetual. The future state of things shall exhibit a strange contrast with the former. As the former time degraded the land of Zebulon and the land of Naphtali. so the latter glorifies the way of the sea, the bank of the Jordan, Galilee of the Gentiles. The same region is described in both clauses, namely, the northern extremity of the land of Israel. This is designated, first, by the ssquj which occupied it, then, by its relative position with respect to the Jordan and the sea of Tiberias. This part of the country, from’being the most degraded and afflicted, should receive peculiar honour. Its debase ment and distress both arose from its remote and frontier situation, proximity to the heathen, intercourse and mixture with them, and constant exposure to the first attacks of enemies, who usually entered Canaan from the north. To the former of these reasons may be traced the expressions of contempt for Galilee recorded in the books of the New Testament (John 1: 46. 7: 52. Matt. 26: 69. Acts 1: 11. 2: 7). How this disgrace was to be ex changed for honour, is explained in the next verse. Besides this, which seems to be the most satisfactory interpretation, there are several others, more or less at variance with it. The English version supposes a contrast not merely between ^£^ and.vasrt, but between these two and the subsequent deliverance. This requires ^j?n to be taken in the sense of lightly afflicting, as distinguished from ^PS-n to afflict more grievously. But this distinction is unauthorized by usage. The Vulgate renders ^>£ft alleviata est. Some of the Jewish writers make it mean to lighten the country by removing its inhabitants; but then ^zsn must mean to bring them back again. Koppe makes Judah the subject of the promise. As Galilee wasfirst afflicted, then delivered, so should Judah be; but this is wholly arbi-.trary. Cocceius converts the promise into a threat by reading there was not (or has never been) such darkness. Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Ewald, and others, give to h3 the sense of but, because what immediately precedes is understood by them not as a promise but a threatening. Vitringa and Junius retain the proper meaning for, but connect it with v. 16 or v. 18.
The necessity of either supposition is removed by explaining the last clause of v. 22, with J. D. Michaelis and Hitzig, as the beginning of the promise. The Vulgate connects sstja xb with v. 22 and translates it non poterit avolare, as if from cps to fly; but it is obviously a cognate form to S^sa in the preceding verse. Hitzig explains c^n a<b as a compound, meaning the negative or opposite of darkness, i. e. light, as yy xb (ch. 10: 15) means that which is not wood. Some regard 5 as a temporal particle, at or in the former time. Junius, Rosenmiiller, Gesenius and others make it a conjunction, as the former time debased, etc. The original construction seems to be like the former time (which) debased, etc. Of those who regard bj5tt and “nspn as descriptive of different degrees of affliction, some suppose the invasion of Tiglath-pileser to be compared with that of Shalmaneser; or the invasion of Israel with that of Judah; or the Assyrian with the Babylonian conquest; or the Babylonian with the Roman. The sea mentioned in the last clause is not the Mediterranean but the sea of Galilee, as appears from Matt. 14: 15, 16. iss is here used in the sense of side or part adjacent. The region spoken of was that along the Jordan (on one or both sides) near the sea of Galilee. According to Junius, Galilee of the Gentiles means Galilaea populosa. Gesenius admits that Isaiah has reference to the times of the Messiah in this promise of deliverance and exaltation to the Galileans.
