THE change for the better, which was promised at the close of the eighth chapter, is described in the ninth as consisting in the rise of a great light upon the darkness, in the increase of the nation and their joy, excited by deliverance from bondage and the universal prevalence of peace, arising from the advent of a divine successor to David, who should restore, establish, and enlarge his kingdom without any limitation, vs. 1-6.
From the times of the Messiah, the Prophet suddenly reverts to his own, and again predicts the punishment of Ephraim by repeated strokes. The people had been warned both by messages from God and by experience, but had continued to indulge their proud self-confidence, in consequence of which God allowed the Assyrians, after overthrowing Rezin, to attack them also, while at the same time they were harassed by perpetual assaults from their hostile neighbours, vs. 7-11. 154
Still they did not repent and return to God, who therefore cut off sud denly many of all classes, but especially the rulers of the nation and the false prophets, the flattering seducers of the wretched people, from whom he must now withhold even the ordinary proofs of his compassion, vs. 12-16.
All this was the natural effect of sin, like a fire in a thicket, which at last consumes the forest, and involves the land in smoke and flame. Yet amidst these strokes of the divine displeasure, they were still indulging mutual animosities and jealousies, insomuch that Israel was like a famished man devouring his own flesh. Manasseh thus devoured Ephraim and Ephraim Manasseh, while the two together tried to devour Judah, vs. 17-20.
The recurrence of the same clause at the end of vs. 11, 16, 20, and the fourth verse of the next chapter, has led the modern Germans to regard this as a case of regular strophical arrangement; and as the same form occurs above in ch. 5: 25, Ewald interpolates that verse between the sixth and seventh of this chapter, as a part of the same context. The objection to these critical hypotheses will be stated in the exposition.
It has been observed already that the division of the chapters is in this part of the book peculiarly unfortunate; the first part of the ninth (vs. 1-6) containing the conclusion of the-eighth, and the first part of the tenth (vs. 1-4) the conclusion of the ninth.
The numbers of the verses in this chapter differ in the Hebrew and English Bibles; what is the last verse of the eighth in the former is the first of the ninth in the latter. The references in the commentary are all to the divisions of the Hebrew text.
1. The, people (just described, i. e. the people of Galilee), those walking in the dark (expressive both of spiritual blindness and extreme dis tress), have seen a great light (the change being presented to the Prophet’s view as already past): the dwellers in the land of the shadow of death (i. e. of intense darkness), light has beamed upon them. These words, in a general sense, may be descriptive of any great and sudden change in the condition of the people, especially of one from ignorance and misery to illumination and enjoyment. They are still more appropriate to Christ as the light of the world (John 8: 12), a light to the nations (Isai. 42: 6. 49: 6), and the sun of righteousness (Mai. 4: 2), which rose upon the world when he manifested forth his glory by his teachings and his miracles in Galilee (John 2:11). It was in this benighted and degraded region that he first appeared as a messenger from God; and in that appearance we are expressly taught that this prediction was fulfilled (Matth. 4: 12-17). Cocceius needlessly supposes these to be the words of a new speaker. There is nothing to intimate a change of subject, and this verse is really a mere specification in positive form of the negative prediction in the first clause of the verse preceding. By the people we are not to understand all Israel (Maurer), nor the Jews as distinguished from the ten tribes (Kimchi. Calvin), nor the people of Jerusalem (Jarchi, Aben Ezra, Grotius), nor the people of God, the spiritual Israel (Cocceius), but the Galileans who had just been mentioned (Junius, J. H. Michaelis, Vitringa, Hendewerk).—By darkness Piscator understands sorrow; Gesenius, calamity in general; the Targum, Israel’s sufferings in Egypt; Jarchi, Kimchi, and Grotius, those of Judah during Sennacherib’s invasion; Calvin, those of the Jews, and Hendewerk those of the ten tribes, in exile. But it rather expresses the complex idea of a state of sin and misery (Psalm 107: 10, 11), including outward and inward darkness, the darkness of ignorance and the darkness of distress.—DeDieu and Fiirst make MaVs a simple derivative of n^t with a feminine termination, like msba from “jba. The more common and probable opinion is that it is a compound of ^s and ria. It is not the proper name of a particular valley (Hitzig), but a poetical designation of the most profound obscurity—as dark as death—deadly darkness—with a ^special allusion here to the spiritual death, under whose shade the Galileans sat.— Instead of have seen, Luther, J. H. Michaelis, Gesenius and others, have the present see, as if the Prophet while speaking beheld a sudden flash. Light is not merely an emblem of joy (Piscator) or deliverance (Gesenius), but of outward and inward illumination. Knobel understands by the people the exile of the ten tribes, and by the land of the shadow of death Assyria as the place of their captivity.
2. The Prophet now, by a sudden apostrophe, addresses God himself, who, by bestowing on the Galileans this great light, would not only honour them, but afford occasion of great joy to all the tj^e Israel, including those who should be gathered from the gentiles. Thouhast enlarged the nation (i. e. Israel in general), thou hast increased its joy (literally, to it thou hast increased the joy)—they rejoice before thee like the joy in harvest, as men rejoice when they divide the spoil. Luther and Umbreit explain *n’a to mean the gentiles, and regard this not as a description of deliverance but-of oppression. Hitzig supposes ^ia to mean the returning exiles. All other writers seem to be agreed that it means the Israelites in general. The in crease of the nation has been variously explained to mean the gathering of a great army by the king of Assyria, to whom the verse is then addressed (Grotius)—or the crowding of the Jews into Jerusalem during Sennacherib’s invasion (Aben Ezra)—or an increase in the number of the Israelites while in captivity (Hitzig)—or the general diffusion of the Jewish race after the exile (Vitringa). It really means the increase of the people in their own land, not a mere growth of population (Gesenius), but an increase of the true Israel by the calling of the gentiles (Hengstenberg, Christol. vol. I. pt. 2, p. 110). Symmachus separates nbian from what follows (InMi&wag TO f&vog o ovx IfieydJiwai), in which he is followed by J. D. Michaelis and Maurer. -But this requires a change in the punctuation and division of the words to render it grammatical. DeDieu takes t6 as equivalent to sbn— • hast thou not increased the joy?’—which is forced and arbitrary. Another construction is, thou hast increased the nation of the Jews, but thou hast not increased the joy of their enemies (Jarchi) or of the gentiles (Luther). But this assumes two different subjects in the two successive clauses. Hitzig and Hengstenberg thus construe it—thou dost increase the nation whose joy thou hast not heretofore increased. But this requires a relative to be supplied, and arbitrarily refers the verbs to different times. If the textual reading (xb) be retained, as it is by Hengstenberg, Maurer, Hitzig, Henderson, Umbreit, and the older writers, the best construction is that given by Calvin and Cocceius—thou hast increased the nation, but thou hast not increased the joy as thou art now about to do. It is best, how ever, ^o read *b instead of »b, with the Masora, several ancient versions, Gesenius, DeWette, and Knobel, or to regard the latter as a mere orthographical variation for the former (Ewald ad loc. and Heb. Gr. <§> 555). The same emendation is required by the context in several other places (e. g. ch. 49: 5. 63: 9). Junius and Tremellius suppose the former joy or prosperity of Israel, acquired by toil and bloodshed, as in a harvest or a battle, to be here contrasted with the joy which the Messiah would impart. Knobel supplies a relative before innaia, gives -ussa the sense of when, and sup poses the joy of actual victory to be compared with that of harvest—thou hast increased the joy wherewith they rejoice before thee, like the joy of harvest, when they rejoice in their dividing the spoil. But this makes the structure of the sentence«| artificial and complex. Rejoicing before God Calvin explains to mean rejoicing with a real or a reasonable joy; Piscator, with a secret spiritual joy, not before man but God; Cocceius, Vitringa, Hitzig, Hengstenberg, and Ewald, more correctly, as an act of religious worship, either simply in allusion to the rejoicing of the people before God at the tabernacle or temple under the law of Moses (Deut. 12: 7. 14: 26), or in reference to an actual performance of that duty. The Targum explains harvest as a metaphor for war or battle, which destroys the Prophet’s beautiful comparison of the joy of victory, or joy in general, to that which accompanies the harvest in all countries, and especially in the East (Ps. 4: 8. 126: 6).—Kimchi makes the Assyrians the subject of ^W, Knobel the Israelites themselves, but it is better to take it indefinitely or to supply men as in the English version. “^sps is not a false reading for vsp or T’spn, which we find in a few manuscripts (Lowth), but another instance of the idiomatic use of the construct form before a pro position, as in the preceding verse (fx:: ^r^). See Gesenius §114. 1. Ewald $ 510. To the promise here given there is probably allusion in the language of the angel who announced the birth of Jesus to.the shepherds (Luke 2: 10): Behold, 1 bring you good tidings of great joy, which shall be to all the people (navrl 7$ lay), i. e. to the whole nation, all the Israel of God.
3. This verse assigns the reason or occasion of the promised joy. They shall rejoice before thee, that (or because) the yoke, of his burden (his burdensome yoke), and the rod of his shoulder (or back), and the staff of the one driving him (his task-master, slave-driver) thou hast broken, like the day (as in the day) of Midian, as Gideon routed Midian, i. e. suddenly, totally, and by special aid from heaven. This promise was not fulfilled in the deliverance of the Jews from Babylon (Calvin), which bore no resemblance to the victory of Gideon; nor in the (destruction of Sennacherib’s army (Grotius), the benefits of which event were, only temporary; nor in the destruction of Jerusalem by Titus (J. D. Michaelis), to which there is no allusion in the context; but in the glorious deliverance of the Galileans (the first converts to Christianity), and of all who with them made up the true Israel, from the heavy bur den of the covenant of works, the galling yoke of the Mosaic law, the service of the devil, and the bondage of corruption. Outward de liverance is only promised, so far as it accompanied the spiritual change or was included in it. Cocceius refines too much when he distinguishes between the rod and staff, as denoting the civil and the ceremonial law. The meaning, on the other hand, is lowered by restricting the prophetic figures to Sennacherib’s siege of Jerusalem (Grotius), or the tribute paid to Assyria by Hezekiah (Jarchi) or Ahaz (Gesenius), or to mere dependence on a foreign power (Hitzig). The application of the terms by J. D. Michaelis to the persecution of the Galileans or first Christians by the Jews, seems al ogether fanciful. Barnes refers the pronoun in his burden to the oppressor (which he made you bear), and Forerius in like manner explains the rod of his shoulder to mean the rod carried on the tyrant’s shoulder. But the suffix in both cases relates not to the oppressor but to the oppressed, and aaia includes not merely the shoulders but the space between them, the upper part of the back. Forerius also refers is to the oppressor—< thou hast broken the rod of the oppressor with himself.’ Munster refers it to the rod—( *with which he oppressed them.’ Maurer refers it correctly to the sufferer, but.gives the preposition the distinct sense of *against or upon, because the tyrant presses or. rushes upon his victim. It is no doubt, as Gesenius and Ewald hold, a mere connective, taken here by to as it is elsewhere by “152 (Ex. 1: 14. Lev. 25: 39). The day of any one in Hebrew often means the day in which something memorable happens to him, or is done by him (vide supra, ch. 2: 12), and in Arabic is absolutely used for a day of battle. The rout of the Midianites, recorded in the seventh chapter of Judges, is here referred to, not because it took place in a single night, like the destruction of Sennacherib’s army (Jarchi)—nor because the foes of Israel, like those of the church, destroyed each other (Cocceius)—nor because the truth, which overcomes the world, is in earthen vessels, like the lamps of Gideon (Vitringa)—nor because the preaching of the gospel may be likened to the blowing of trumpets (Dutch Annotations)—but because it was a wonderful display of divine power, without the use of any adequate human means— and also, as suggested by Herder (Heb. Poes. vol. II. p. 496), because it took place in the same part of the country which this prophecy refers to. Jezreel, where the battle was fought (Judg. 6: 33), was in the territory of Manasseh, to which tribe Gideon himself belonged (Judg. 6: 15); but he was aided by the neighbouring tribes of Asher, Zebulon, and Naphtali (Judg. 6: 35).—Junius, in order to sustain his interpretation of the second verse, continues the construction into this, and gives to ^ the sense of when —’ they rejoiced before thee, etc., when (or whenever) thou didst break their yoke,’ etc.—i. e. in every case of former deliverance. (See also the margin of the English version.) The Septuagint and Targum supply a verb in the first clause (ag^^ra*, n^sat), which is unnecessary, as the nouns in that clause are governed by the verb in the last part of the sentence. That verb does not mean to scatter (Septuagint), or to conquer (Vulgate), or to frighten (Cocceius), but to break, to break off, or to break in pieces. Vitringa takes noa as a synonyme of iiab a yoke; but it no doubt denotes here, as in every other case, a staff or rod. Gesenius, in his Commentary, supposes an ellipsis of the preposition before ai”1; but, in the last edition of his grammar. he agrees with Maurer in supposing the noun itself to be used adverbially or absolutely in answer to the question when? The absolute form of 1’baO is written by Gesenius ^sb, by Ewald bho. The Daghesh is euphonic, and the Sheva anomalous.
4. The destruction of the oppressing power shall be followed by pro found and universal peace. To express this idea, the Prophet describes the equipments of the soldier as consumed with fire. For all the armour of the armed man (or the man-at-arms, who mingles) in the tumult (of battle), and the garment rolled in blood, shall be for burning (and for) food (or fuel) of fire. In other words, the usual accompaniments of battle shall be utterly destroyed, and by implication, war itself shall cease. There is no need of supposing, with Vitringa, Lowth, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Henderson, an allusion to the ancient custom of burning the armour and equipments of the slain upon the field of battle as an act of triumph. It is not the weapons of the enemy alone, but all weapons of war, that are to be consumed; not merely because they have been used for a bad purpose, but because they are hereafter to be useless. It is not so much a prophecy of conquest as of peace; a peace however which is not to be expected till the enemies of God are overcome; and therefore the prediction may be said to include both events, the final overthrow of all opposing powers and the subsequent prevalence of universal peace. This last is uniformly spoken of in Scripture as characteristic of Messiah’s reign, both internal and external, in society at large and in the hearts of his people. With respect to the latter, the prediction has been verified with more or less distinctness, in every case of true conversion. With respect to the former, its fulfilment is inchoate, but will one day be complete, when the lion and the lamb shall lie- down together, and He who is the Prince of Peace shall have dominion from sea to sea, and from the river to the ends of the earth. An allusion to this pro mise and its final consummation may be found in the words of the heavenly host who celebrated the Saviour’s birth (Luke 2: 14), Glory to God in the highest, and on earth PEACE, good will to men. According to Jarchi, Kimchi, Calvin, and Grotius, this verse contains two distinct propositions, one relating to the day of Midian or to wars in general, and the other to the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army or the deliverance of the Jews from exile. The sense would then be that while other battles are accompanied with noise and bloodshed, this shall be with burning and fuel of fire. But this construction, besides assuming a change of subject, of which there is no intimation in the text, departs from the natural and ordinary meaning of the words. The fire mentioned in the last clause has been variously explained as a poetical description of the Assyrian slaughter (Jarchi, Kim chi, Aben Ezra, Grotius), or of the angel by whom it was effected (Abarbenel)—of the destruction of Jerusalem (Vatablus, J. D. Michaelis), or of the world (Diodati)—or as an emblem of the Holy Ghost (Forerius), or of our Saviour’s zeal for man’s salvation (Gill). It is mentioned simply as a powerful consuming agent, to express the abolition of the implements of war, and, as a necessary consequence, of war itself. The verse, then, is not a mere description of Gideon’s victory (Junius)—nor a comparison between that or any other battle and the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army (Grotius)—nor a prediction of the fall of Jerusalem in spite of an obstinate and bloody defence (J. D. Michaelis)—but a prophecy of changes to take place when the great light and deliverer of the nation should appear. The ^3, at the beginning is translated when by Junius and Tremellius and in the margin of the English Bible; but it really means for, and assigns a second reason for the joy predicted in v. 2. “jxt?, which occurs nowhere else, is taken in the sense of war or battle, by David Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, and Grotius; in that of a military greave or sandal, boot or shoe, by Joseph Kimchi, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Maurer, Hengstenberg, Hendewerk, Henderson, and Ewald; and in that of armour or equipment in general, by Hitzig, DeWette, Umbreit and Knobel. to,xb is a participle formed from this noun, and signifies a person -thus equipped. The whole phrase therefore means the armour of the armed man, the equipment -of the soldier. The obscurity of these terms to the old translators is sufficiently apparent from the oroVqv tni(jvv?iytiwqv of the Septuagint, the violenta praedatio of the Vulgate, and the unintelligible version of the whole sentence given in the Targum. Hoheisel and Rosenmuller understand by ttte-i the noise or clatter of the military shoe or sandal armed with nails; but it rather means noise in general, or more specifically, the shock and tumult of battle, the melee. The phrase tite’na qualifies te,xb — the armour of him who mingles armed in the tumult of battle, and whose r&Bto or upper garment is described as rolled in blood, not merely dyed of a red colour (Hitzig), but literally stained with the blood of conflict. J. D. Michaelis makes the first clause, by a harsh and ungrammatical construction, mean that he who arms himself arms himself only to tremble or to make to tremble. There is no need of supplying a verb in the first clause, with Calvin (fit) and Grotius (solet esse), much less two with Barnes. The nouns in this clause are the subjects of the verb at the beginning of the second, which agrees grammatically with the second, but logically with both. The Vav is conversive, and at the same time introduces the apodosis of the sentence (Gesenius § 152, 1, a). There is no need therefore of adopting J. D. Michaelis’s construction of the last clause, that whatever is destined for the fire (urs nbaxa) will certainly be burned (ftB^irb rwn).
5. This verse gives a further reason for the joy of the people, by bringing into view the person who was to effect the great deliverance. For a child is born to us (or for us, i. e. for our benefit) — a “son is given to us (i. e. by Jehovah, an expression frequently applied in the New Testament to Christ’s incarnation), and the government is upon his shoulder (as a burden or a robe of office) — and his name is called Wonderful (literally, Wonder”) — Counsellor — Mighty God — Everlasting Father — Prince of Peace. The figure of a robe or’ dress is preferred by Grotius and Hengstenberg, that of a burden by Gesenius, Hitzig, and Knobel, who cites analogous expressions from Cicero (rempublicam universam vestris humeris sustinetis), and the younger Pliny (bene humeris tuis sedet imperium). When it is said that his name should be called, it does not mean that he should actually bear these names in real life, but merely that he should deserve them, and that they would be descriptive of his character. The verb fi^pi may agree with mrr, or be construed indefinitely—Tie (i. e. any one) shall call his name—which is equivalent to saying they shall call his name, or in a passive form, his name shall be called. The child here predicted or described is explained to be Hezekiah, by Jarchi, Kimchi, Aben Ezra, Grotius, Hensler, Paulus, Gesenius, Hendewerk. This explanation is rejected, not only by the older writers, but among the modern Germans by Bauer, Eichhorn, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel. The vav conversive^e renders the futures *nrn and 5O£^ perfectly equivalent, in point of time, to the preterites i^ and -,n;; so that if the latter refer to an event already past, the former must refer to past time too, and vice versa. The verse then either represents Hezekiah as unborn, or as already invested with the regal office, at the date of the prediction, neither of which can be historically true. The attempt to escape from this dilemma, by referring the two first verbs to something past, and the two next to something future, is a direct violation of the laws of Hebrew syntax. Besides, the terms of the description are extravagant and false, if applied to Hezekiah. In what sense was he wonderful, a mighty God, an everlasting father, a. prince of peace? The modern Jews, in order to sustain their antichristian exegesis, have devised a new construction of the sentence, which applies all these epithets, except the last, to God himself, as the subject of the verb jnpi. And (he who is) Wonderful, the Counsellor, the Mighty God, the Ever lasting Father, calls his (i. e. Hezekiah’s) name the Prince of Peace. This construction, which is given by Jarchi and Kimchi, is supposed by some to have been suggested by the Chaldee Paraphrase, while others cite the latter as a witness in favour of applying all the names to the Messiah. (See the opposite statements in Vitringa and Henderson.) But how could even the last of these distinctive titles be applied to Hezekiah? Neither actively nor passively could he be called, at least with any emphasis, a Prince of Peace. He waged war against others, and was himself invaded and subjected to a foreign power, from which he afterwards revolted. To this it is replied by Gesenius and Maurer, that the Prophet may have enter tained a groundless expectation. But even this bold conjecture is of no avail against a second objection of a different kind, viz. that a long enumeration of titles belonging to God himself is utterly irrelevant in speaking of a name which should be borne by Hezekiah. And this objection lies, with still more force, against Abarbenel’s construction, which includes even Prince of Peace among Jehovah’s titles, and takes i^’U x-ifsi absolutely in the sense of giving a name or making famous. The hypothesis first mentioned is exposed moreover to the fatal grammatical objection, urged by Calvin and Cocceius, that, according to invariable usage, IEE must have stood between the names of God and the name of Hezekiah. These constructions are accordingly abandoned now, even by some who still identify the 11 child with Hezekiah. These assume the ground, maintained of old by Aben Ezra, that there is nothing in the epithets which might not be applied to Hezekiah. In order to maintain this ground, the meaning of the epithets themselves is changed, s^z is either made to mean nothing more than remarkable, distinguished (Grotius, Gesenius, Knobel), or is ungrammati cally joined with fST1 in the sense of a wonderful counsellor (Ewald), or wonderfully wise, (Hendewerk). -p-n itself is joined with iina ^s, as meaning a consulter of the mighty God, a construction which is equally at variance with the Masoretic interpunction and the usage of the word “|7>”ih, which never means one who asks, but always one who gives advice, and more especially a public counsellor or minister of state. (Vide supra, ch. 1: 26. 3: 3.) But some who admit this explain the next title, Tna Vx, to mean a mighty hero or a godlike hero (Gesenius, DeWette, Maurer), although they grant that in another part of this same prophecy it means the Mighty God. (Vide infra, ch. 10: 21. cf. Deut. 10: 17. Jer. 32: 18.) ^2 iax is explained to mean a father of spoil, a plunderer, a victor (Abarbenel, Hitzig, Knobel)—or a perpetual father i. e. benefactor of the people (Hensler, Doederlein, Gesenius, Maurer, Hendewerk, Ewald)—or at most. the founder of a new or everlasting age (Lowth), or the father of a numerous offspring (Grotius). All this to discredit or evade the obvious mean ing of the phrase, which either signifies a father (or possessor) of eternity. i. e. an eternal being—or an author and bestower of eternal life. Possibly both may be included. The necessity of such explanations is sufficient to condemn the exegetical hypothesis involving it, and shows that this hypo thesis has only been adopted to avoid the natural and striking application of the words to Jesus Christ, as the promised child, emphatically born for us and given to us, as the Son of God and the Son of man, as being wonderful in his person, works and sufferings—a counsellor, prophet, or authoritative teacher of the truth, a wise administrator of the church, and confidential adviser of the individual believer—a real man, and yet the Mighty God— eternal in his own existence, and the giver of eternal life to others—the great peace-maker between God and man, between Jew and gentile, the umpire between nations, the abolisher of war, and the giver of internal peace to all who being justified by faith have peace with God through our Lord Jesus Christ (Rom. 5:1). The doctrine that this prophecy relates to the Messiah, was not disputed even by the Jews, until the virulence of antichristian controversy drove them from the ground which their own progenitors had steadfastly maintained. In this departure from the truth they have been followed by some learned writers who are Christians only in the name, and to whom may be applied, with little alteration, what one of them (Gesenius) has said with respect to the ancient versions of this very text, viz. that the general meaning put upon it may be viewed as the criterion of a Christian and an antichristian writer. It has been already mentioned that some writers even of this class have been compelled to abandon the application of this text to Hezekiah, and that one of the latest and most eminent interpreters by whom it is maintained, admits that there may be some allusion to the nascent doctrine of a personal Messiah. These concessions, partial and reluctant as they are, serve to strengthen the most ancient and most natural interpretation of this signal prophecy^
6. The reign of this king shall be progressive and perpetual, because founded in justice and secured by the distinguishing favour of Jehovah. To the increase of the government (or power) and to the peace (or prosperity of this reign) there shall be no end, upon the throne of David and upon his kingdom, to establish it and to confirm it, in justice and in righteousness, from henceforth and forever, the zeal of Jehovah of Hosts shall do this. / According to Luther, Cocceius, Castalio, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, DeWette, Ewald, the preposition at the beginning of the verse connects it with what goes before. He is born, or called by these names, for the increase of power and for prosperity without end. To this it may be objected, first, that the means and the end thus stated are incongruous, and then that “pat, according to usage, is not a mere particle of negation, but includes the substantive verb. Rosenmiiller, Hengstenberg, Umbreit and Knobel retain the old and common construction, which supposes a new sentence to begin here and connects the preposition with what follows. The government or power thus to be enlarged is of course that of the child, who is described as born and given in the foregoing verse. A striking parallel is furnished by the prophecy in Micah 5: 3. There, as here, a king is promised who should be the son of David, and should reign over all the earth in peace and righteousness forever. It is there expressed, and here implied, that this king should re-unite the divided house ~of Israel, although this is but a small part of the increase promised, which includes the calling of the gentiles also. Peace, though included in wbiu, is not a full equivalent. The He brew word denotes not only peace as opposed to war, intestine strife, or turbulence, but welfare and prosperity in general as opposed to want and sorrow. The reign here predicted was to be not only peaceful but in every respect prosperous. And this prosperity, like the reign of which it is predicted, is to have no limit either temporal or local. It is to be both universal and eternal. There is nothing to preclude the very widest explanation of the terms employed. Ewald explains ^s as meaning for the sake of, on account of; but there is no need of departing from the sense of on which is its proper one, and that which it always has in other cases when prefixed to the noun KOS. A verb is introduced before KD=> }a by the Vulgate (sedebit) and Gesenius (komme),. but without necessity. The construction is what the grammarians call a pregnant one. The endless increase of power and prosperity on the throne of David means of course that the Prince, whose reign was to be thus powerful and prosperous, would be a descendant of David. This is indeed a repetition and explanation of a promise given to David (2 Sam. 7: 11-16. 1 Kings 8: 25) and repeatedly referred to by him (2 Sam. 23: 1-5. Ps. 2, 45, 72, 89, 132). Hence the Messiah is not only called the Branch or Son of David (2 Sam. 7: 12, J3. Jer. 23: 5. 33: 15), but David himself (Jer. 30: 9. Ezek. 34: 23, 24. 37: 24. Hos. 3: 5). The two reigns are identified, not merely on account of an external resemblance or a typical relation, but because the one was really a restoration or continuation of the other. Both kings were heads of the same body, the one a temporal head, the other spiritual, the one temporary, the other eternal. The Jewish nation, as a spiritual body, is really continued in the Christian church. The subject of the prophecy is the reign o£the Messiah; the effect predicted, its stability and increase; the means to be employed, judgment and justice; the efficient cause, the zeal of Jehovah. Grotius distinguishes between judgment and justice, as denoting righteous government on one hand, and righteous subjection to it on the other. The justice spoken of is that of the Messiah and his subjects. All the acts of his ad ministration will be righteous, and the effect of this upon his people will be righteousness on their part, and this prevalence of righteousness will naturally generate the increase and stability here promised. The preposition s does not merely mean with justice, as an accompanying circumstance, but by it, as a necessary means. The phrase swa cannot mean from that time, as explained by Junius and Tremellius (ab isto tempore), but must have its ordinary sense, from this time. It is possible, however, that the Prophet, as in many other cases, takes his stand upon a point of future time, and speaks of it as actually present. Having spoken of the promised child in v. 5 as already born and given, he may now look forward from its birth into the future, and in this sense use the phrase from henceforth. Cocceius understands the words more strictly a? meaning ’ from the date of the prediction,’ and referring to the whole series of events, from that time onwards, which are mentioned in this prophecy—the deliverance of Judah— the destruction of Ephraim and the overthrow of Syria—the deportation of the ten tribes—Sennacherib’s invasion—Nebuchadnezzar’s conquest—the Babylonish exile—the return—the subsequent vicissitudes—the rising of the great light upon Galilee—the increase of the church by the accession of the gentiles—the breaking of the yoke and staff of spiritual bondage— the destruction of the implements of war—the establishment and gradual enlargement of the Messiah’s kingdom. These form a chain of great events succeeding one another without any interruption from the date of the prediction to the end of time. Whatever be the terminus a quo intended by the Prophet, it is clear that he describes the reign of the Messiah as an endless one. The word e^ii’, though properly denoting mere indefinite duration, and therefore frequently applied to terms and periods of time, such as the length of human life, is always to be taken in its largest meaning, unless limited by something in the context or the nature of the case; much more in such an instance as the one before us, where the con text really precludes all limitation by the strength of its expressions. To explain forever here, with Jarchi and Grotius, as meaning till the end of Hezekiah’s life, is simply ludicrous, unless the other phrases, both in this verse and the fifth, are mere extravagant hyperboles. The Masoretic interpunction requires this phrase to be connected with what follows—’ from henceforth and forever the zeal of Jehovah of Hosts will do this.’ It is so read by Junius, Cocceius, and Gill; but most interpreters suppose it to qualify what goes before, and take the remaining words as a short independent proposition. The difference is little more than one of punctuation. Both constructions make the reign of the Messiah an eternal one. The word MNSp expresses the complex idea of strong affection comprehending or attended by a jealous preference of one above another. It is used in the Old Testament to signify not only God’s intense love for his people but his I jealousy in their behalf, that is to say, his disposition to protect and favour them at the expense of others. Sometimes, moreover, it includes the idea of a jealous care of his own honour, or a readiness to take offence at any thing opposed to it, and a determination to avenge it when insulted. There is nothing in this idea of the divine jealousy incongruous or unworthy as Umbreit supposes. The expressions are derived from the dialect of human passion, but describe something absolutely right on God’s part for the very reasons which demonstrate its absurdity and wickedness on man’s. These two ideas of God’s jealous partiality for his own people, and his jealous sensibility respecting his own honour, are promiscuously blended in the usage of the word, and are perhaps both included in the case before us. Both for his own sake and his people’s, he would bring these events to pass. Or rather the two motives are identical, that is to say, the one includes the other. The welfare of the church is only to be sought so far as it promotes God’s glory, and a zeal which makes the glory of the church an object to be aimed at for its own sake, cannot be a zeal for God, or is at best a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. The mention of God’s jealousy or zeal as the procuring cause of this result affords a sure foundation for the hopes of all believers. His zeal is not a passion but a principle of powerful and certain operation. The astonishing effects produced by feeble means in the promotion, preservation, and extension of Christ’s kingdom, can only be explained upon the principle that the zeal of the Lord of Hosts effected it. The reign here described cannot be that of Hezekiah, which was confined to Judah, and was neither peaceful nor progressive nor perpetual. It cannot be the joint reign of himself and his successors; for the line was broken at the Babylonish exile. It cannot be the reign of the Maccabees or Hasmonean princes, for these were not the sons of David but of Levi. The prediction, if fulfilled at all, could only be fulfilled in a reign which after it began was never interrupted, and has ever since been growing in extent and power. Is not this the reign of Christ? Does it not answer all the requisite conditions? The evangelists take pains to prove by formal genealogies his lineal descent from David, and his reign, unlike all others, still continues and is constantly enlarging. Hendewerk and other modern German writers have objected that this prophecy is not applied to Christ in the New Testament. But we have seen already, that the first verse of the chapter and the one before it are interpreted by Matthew as a prophecy of Christ’s appearing as a public teacher first in Galilee; and no one has denied that this is part of the same context, Nor is this all. The expressions of the verse before us were applied to Christ, before his birth, by Gabriel, when he said to Mary (Luke I: 32-34), He shall be great, and shall be called the Son of the Highest, and the Lord God shall give unto him the throne of his father David, and he shall reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of his kingdom there shall be no end. The historical allusions in these words show clearly that the person spoken of was one expected, or in other words a subject of prophecy, and though the terms are not precisely those used by Isaiah, they agree with them more closely than with any other passage. Indeed the variations may be perfectly accounted for, upon the supposition that the angel’^ message was intended to describe the birth of Christ as a fulfilment, not of this prediction only, but of several others also which are parallel with this, and that the language was so framed as to suggest them all, but none of them so prominently as the one before us and the earlier promise upon which it was founded. (Compare 2 Sam. 7:11,12. Dan. 7: 14, 27. Micah 4: 7, etc.) The objection that Christ’s kingdom is not of this world, and that the mention of the throne of David shows that a temporal monarchy was meant? proceeds upon the supposition that there is no such thing as figurative language, or at least that it is never used in prophecy. The objection of the Jews, that wars have not ceased since Christ came, lies with still greater force against their application of the text to Hezekiah. It 5s founded moreover on a misconception of the promise, which was not made to the world1 but to the church, and not even to that, as something to be realized at once, but by a gradual process of pacification. The reference to Christ is not a mere typical and secondary one, but primary and positive. Some who refer this whole prediction, in its proper sense, to Hezekiah, at the same time grant that it has a higher reference to Christ. Why then assume a lower sense without necessity or warrant? The violence thus done to the expressions of the text will be sufficiently evinced by stating that according to this view of the matter, as exhibited by Grotius, the increase here pro mised means continuance for nine and twenty years (multiplicabitur ejus imperium, id est, durabit per annos XXIX)—from henceforth and forever is from Hezekiah’s birth until his death (a modo et usque, in sempilernum, ab initio ad finem vitae)—and when the Prophet says the zeal of God shall do this, what he means is that his zeal will lead him to bestow upon his people such a prince as Hezekiah (zclus Domini exercituum faciet hoc, id est, ardens amor Dei erga pios, qui insunt poipulo, dabit nobis ac servabit tam bonum principem). This forced attenuation of the Prophet’s meaning might be natural enough in the rabbinical expositors, whose only aim was to avoid the application of the prophecy to Christ; but it was utterly unworthy of a man like Grotius, who had nothing to gain by it, and who after all admits the very thing which he appears to be denying, but admits it in the questionable shape of a twofold fulfilment and a double sense, by which proceeding he gratuitously multiplies the very difficulties which interpretation is intended to remove. Upon the whole, it may be said with truth that there is no alleged prophecy of Christ, for which it seems so difficult with any plausibility to find another subject; and until that is done which all the Rabbins and a Grotius could not do, we may repose upon the old evangeli cal interpretation as undoubtedly the true one.—In nearly all editions and manuscripts, the first letter of the word S-QIB presents the final form e, an orthographical anomaly mentioned in the Talmud, and perhaps very ancient, but not to be regarded as a relic of Isaiah’s autograph, and therefore involving some mysterious meaning. By different Jewish writers it has been explained as an allusion to the recession of the shadow on the dial—to the enclosing of Jerusalem with walls again after the captivity—to the captivity itself, as an enclosure—to the stability of Messiah’s kingdom, as the open 73 is said to have the opposite meaning in Neh. 2:13. Some Christian writers have followed this rabbinical example by suggesting what may possibly have been intended by the unusual orthography, supposing it to be both ancient and intentional—e. g. the exclusion of the unbelieving Jews from the kingdom of Christ—the secret inward progress of that kingdom among men—the perpetual virginity of Mary—the concealment of the time when the prediction should be verified—the spread of the gospel to the four corners of the world—the birth of Christ six hundred years (of which n is the cipher) after the prediction—the opening to the gentiles of the church which had been previously shut up and restricted to the Jews—the perfection of Christ’s kingdom, as denoted by the perfect or square form—and its mystical nature, as denoted by the unusual form of the letter. It is suggested by Cocceius, that the unusual mode of writing may have been intended to attract attention to this signal prophecy. But why should it have been resorted to in this one passage, and in this particular part of it’: Hengstenberg, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Henderson regard it as an accidental anomaly, occasioned by mistake and preserved by superstition; the only objection to which is the extreme care of the Jews as to all points of orthography, and the improbability of such an error, if it could occur, becoming general. Some have accordingly supposed the singularity to be connected, in its origin, with the criticism of the Hebrew text. Hiller (de Arcano Chethib et Keri) conjectures that the final mem was meant to show that the first two letters of nmsb, according to some ancient reading, ought to be omitted, and the word read simply mx Gesenius, Maurer, and Knobel adopt the supposition of Elias Levita, that it indicates a different division of the words, which is also noticed in the Masora, viz. mia^n nz-i tb—to them the dominion shall be great or multiplied. There is, however, no example of the abbreviation nb for crib, corresponding to the common one of 22 for cna.
7. Having repeatedly interchanged the three great subjects of this prophecy—the deliverance of Judah from the power of Syria and Israel —its subsequent punishment by means of the Assyrians—and the reign of the Messiah, for whose sake the kingdom was to be preserved—the Prophet passes here abruptly from the last to the first, and again predicts the punishment of Ephraim. He reverts to this event, which had already been repeatedly foretold, for the purpose of declaring that the blows would be repeated as often and as long as might be needed for the absolute fulfilment of God’s threatenings. He begins by showing that Israel had already been sufficiently forewarned. The Lord sent a word into Jacob, and it came down into Israel. Calvin supposes an antithesis between the clauses, and explains the verse to mean that what had been predicted as to Israel should be fulfilled in Israel; but there is no such usage of ^22. Grotius adopts the same construction, with the additional error of applying Jacob to the whole race, and Israel to the ten tribes, which is altogether arbitrary. Equally groundless is the supposition that Jacob and Israel denote the rival kingdoms. The two names of the patriarch are here used as equivalents, denoting his descendants, and especially the larger part, the kingdom of the ten tribes, to which the national name Israelis wont to be distinctively applied. Another false antithesis is that between the verbs, referring one to past time and the other to the future. This is adopted even by Ewald; but accord ing to the usage of the language, Vav is conversive of the preterite only when preceded by a future, expressed or implied. (See Nordheimer <§> 219. 1.) The LXX seem to have read ^.a pestilence instead of “W a word. Castalio gives it here the sense of thing (rem mittet), Vitringa that of threatening, which is not expressed by this word, but suggested by the context. The true sense is that of a dictum or authoritative declaration, not that which follows, nor that which goes before, but the whole series of threatenings and warnings which God had sent by all the prophets and by all the seers (2 Kings 17: 13), perhaps with special reference to that respecting Pekah in the seventh chapter. The sending of the word here mentioned had either actually taken place, or was regarded by the Prophet in his vision as already past. The preposition does not mean against, or simply to, but into, as usual after verbs of motion. The Septuagint renders ^BU came, the Targum was heard. In Josh. 21: 45 and 1 Kings 8: 56, this same verb is used with “^ word in the sense of failing, or not coming to pass. Adopting this sense here, the meaning of the verse would be, that God had sent a word of warning, but that it had not yet been fulfilled. But in both the places cited, the idea expressed is not that of mere delay, but of entire failure, implying the falsity of the prediction. To give it the contrary sense of coming to pass or taking effect, as Jarchi and Calvin do, is altogether arbitrary. The great majority of writers take it in its usual and proper sense of falling or descending. There is no need, however, of supposing an allusion to the falling of an arrow, or of seed into the earth, or of rain upon it. A more obvious and natural association would be that of a thunderbolt, suggested by Gill and J. D. Michaelis, in reference to the threatening nature of the reve lation; especially as a ^£3 is elsewhere used in the sense of falling upon, i. e. attacking (Josh. 11: 7). The essential import of the phrase is to describe the word as coming down from God in heaven (compare Dan. 4: 28), or, as Hendewerk supposes, from Jerusalem, his earthly residence, motion from which is always spoken of as downward in the Hebrew idiom. The word which God had uttered against Israel had reached them as a mes sage from him, as a revelation, so that there could be no doubt as to its authority and genuineness. Gesenius and Hitzig render the verbs in the present tense, and regard this verse as a title or inscription of the following prophecy, because it makes the strophe and antistrophe unequal. But if this proves any thing, it is that the strophical arrangement is itself a fanciful misapplication of the principles of Greek and Latin prosody to the measured prose of the Hebrew prophets. The solemn repetition of the last clause of v. 8 would be just as natural in an oration as in an ode or a dramatic chorus. The injurious effects of this exaggerated theory of Hebrew versification on the criticism and interpretation of the sacred text have been al ready stated in the general introduction.
8. The word which God had sent had reached the people; they had heard and understood it, but continued to indulge their pride and selfsecurity. And they know (the divine threatening), the people, all of them (literally all of it, the noun being singular but used collectively), Ephraim HO ISAIAH, CHAP. IX. and the inhabitant of Samaria (a limitation of the general terms preceding, so as to prevent their application to Judah), in pride and in greatness of heart (an equivalent expression), saying (the words recorded in the next verse). The apparent inversion in the last clause is well explained by Hendewerk, as arising from the fact that lEStb always stands immediately before the words spoken. Most writers understand the verbs as futures; but this is a question of no moment, as the past time which the Prophet has in view upon the other supposition, was actually future at the date of the prediction. Lowth arbitrarily translates the vav at the beginning of this verse because, and that at the beginning of v. 10 therefore, making one long sentence. Luther, Hendewerk, and Ewald render it by that, and make the construction a subjunctive one—c that they may know or feel it’—which is at least unnecessary. Umbreit not only gives the same construction, but takes w in the absolute sense of having or obtaining knowledge (dass zu Erkentniss komme), which is less consistent both with usage and the con text than the common opinion that the *QI of v. 7 is the object of the verb. Vitringa, Gesenius, and many others, understand the clause to mean that they should know the truth of these predictions by experience. It rather means that they had known and understood God’s warning message. By the people we are not to understand the whole race (Junius), but the ten tribes, or perhaps the whole race and especially the ten tribes (J. H. Michaelis). The suffix in i^s, is referred by Gill to *ai—the people shall know all of it, i. e. all the word—” they shall find that the whole of it will be accomplished, every punctilio in it.” Gesenius, Hendewerk, and Umbreit render it his (sein ganzes Volk), as if referring to the names in v. 7. Its real antecedent is fcsn, as the construction is the common Hebrew one in all such cases—the people all of it, i. e. all the people. The Septuagint makes people govern Ephraim (was 6 ).abs TOV ‘EyQaifi) ‘, but in Hebrew this construction is forbidden by the article. The inhabitant of Samaria is distinctly mentioned, as the inhabitants of Jerusalem are in ch. 8: 14. Schultens (in his Animadv. Philol. ad Jer. 50: 11) gives to a the sense of for, because of, and connects it with what goes before. It really means in or with, and connects the noun with what follows, bx is inaccurately rendered as -an adjective, agreeing with sisb, by the Septuagint (vi/^ij %aQdfa)t and Hendewerk (stolzem Herzen). Greatness of heart in Hebrew does not mean magnanimity, but pride and arrogance. (Vide infra, ch. 10: 12). The feeling here described is not “ a desire of splendour, power, and magnificence, a purpose to be distinguished” (Barnes), but a misplaced confidence in the stability of their condition, ^xb, although an infinitive in form, is not incorrectly rendered as a gerund (dicendo) by Pagninus, Montanus, and Cocceius. A relative construction is preferred by Luther (die da sagen), Calvin (qui dicunt), J. H. Michaelis (dum dicunt), and many others. The participial form of the English Version is given also by the Septuagint, Vulgate, and Dutch Versions, by Vitringa, and by Lowth. There is no necessity or ground for the interrogative construction given by DeDieu (an in superbia dicendumfuit?). Forerius strangely understands the Prophet as sarcastically saying that the people shall be taught to say, in their pride and arrogance, what follows. Hitzig, without the irony—the people shall be made conscious of their own pride and arrogance in saying, etc. But this construction seems to overlook the preposition, irx is not to be taken in the sense of purposing or thinking, which it sometimes obtains from an ellipsis of i-b Vs in his heart, or to himself (Gen. 27: 41), but in its proper sense of speaking, as the usual expression of intention and desire. The conjectural emendation of the text by changing w^ to 1ST1 (Houbigant), iinT (Seeker), or irnm (Lowth), is perfectly gratuitous.
9. The very words of the self-confident Ephraimites are now recorded. Instead of being warned and instructed by what they had already suffered, they presumptuously look for greater prosperity than ever. Bricks are fallen, and hewn stone will we build; sycamores are felled, and cedars will we, substitute. The oriental bricks are unburnt, so that most of their brick structures are as little durable as mud walls. The sycamore is durable, but too light and spongy to be used in solid building. The latter is accord ingly contrasted with the cedar, and the former with hewn stone, the two most highly valued building materials. By some interpreters these words are literally understood. According to J. H. Michaelis, they refer to the cities of the ten tribes which the Syrians destroyed; according to Gill, to the houses outside of the cities and peculiarly exposed to the invaders. So Knobel understands the sense to be, that instead of the mean houses which the As syrians had destroyed, the people of the ten tribes were determined to build better. Hitzig and DeWette suppose that sycamores and cedars are here mentioned, not as timber, but as living trees, and give qibna the specific sense of planting anew. Thus Calvin understands the people to be here represented as regarding the devastations of the enemy only as occasions for increasing the beauty of their houses and plantations. But as this implies a protracted process, we must either suppose it to be put into the mouth of the presumptuous Israelites as a foolish boast, or understand it figuratively. So indeed the whole verse is explained by many, of whom some regard the brick, stone, and trees as figures for great men in general (Targum), or for the kings of Israel in particular (Jarchi), or for the State considered as a building or a tree (Hendewerk), while others more correctly understand both clauses as a metaphorical description of a change from worse to better, by a substitution of the precious for the vile, without specific reference to the lit eral rebuilding of towns or houses. Bricks and sycamores are then mere proverbial expressions for that which is inferior, and cedars and hewn stone for that which is superior. An illustrative parallel is found inch. 60: 17. where the same general idea is expressed by the exchange of stones for iron, iron for silver, wood for brass, brass for gold, of course without allusion to a literal exchange or mutual substitution. Jerome refers this verse to the low condition of Judah under Ahaz, and the boastful determination of the ten tribes to subdue and then restore it to its former splendtmr; but it really relates to what the ten tribes had themselves endured, and expresses their belief that these reverses would be followed by a better state of things than they had ever known. Cocceius understands the sense to be that the prosperity en joyed already would be followed by still greater; but even an inferior de gree of prosperity would hardly have been represented by the metaphor of fallen bricks and prostrate trees.
10. Here begins a second stage in the progress of God’s judgments. He had sent a warning prophecy before (v. 7), and they had been taught its meaning by experience (v. 8), but without effect upon their proud self-confidence. And (now) Jehovah raises up above him (i. e. Ephraim) the (victorious) enemies of Rezin (his late ally) and (besides these) he will instigate his own (accustomed) enemies (to wit, those mentioned in the next verse). The suffix in T^S refers, not to Rezin, but to Jacob, Israel, Ephraim, the inhabitant of Samaria, mentioned in vs. 8, 9. They who were to conquer Israel are called the enemies of Rezin, to remind the Israelites of their alliance with him, and to intimate that they who had so lately conquered Syria were soon to conquer Israel. There is no need therefore of the emendation “ma princes, which is found in many manuscripts and ap proved by Houbigant and Ewald, but which seems to be a mere attempt to escape the supposed difficulties of the common reading i-.st, which has here no doubt its usual sense of enemies, with a particular allusion to its etymology as meaning those who press, oppress, and overcome, so that in this connexion it would really suggest the idea of Rezin’s conquerors, which is ex pressed by Hitzig. Still less is it necessary to exchange “ps-i for ITS or •jTSfifi, as J. D. Michaelis is disposed to do, on the authority of the Septuagint (577) OQOS -ZVooV).—Tbs may be properly translated, as it usually is, against him, which idea is undoubtedly included; but connected as it is with the verb aaar, the preposition may be taken in its original and proper sense of over or above. l *Then he exalted Rezin’s enemies above him.’ By T2i» we are to understand *his own foes, those to whose attacks he was accustomed, in addition to the enemies of Rezin, the Assyrians. “j&=t^ is rendered by the Septuagint scatter (faaaxedadei) and by the Vulgate con found (in tumultum vertet, misprinted in the London Polyglot in tumulum). It is taken in the sense of mixing or combining by Calvin (coadunabit), Grotius (conglomeravit), Munster, Castalio, and others. J. H. Michaelis, who adopts this version, explains rs as a preposition meaning with (eosque cum hostibus Israelis commiscebit). Others suppose an allusion to the mixture of nations in the Assyrian army (Calvin), or to the mixture of Assyrians with the Syrian population (Vatablus). Gesenius, in his Commentary and in the earlier editions of his Lexicon, follows Schultens and J. D. Michaelis in at taching to this word the sense of arming, which is adopted by Rosenmiiller in the abridgment of his Scholia, and by Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk and DeWette. But Gesenius himself, in his Thesaurus, now explains the word as meaning to excite, raise up, or instigate, an explanation given in the Targum (“i^”1) and by Saadias, Abulwalid, and Cocceius (instigat).
11. This verse contains a more particular description of Ephraim’s own enemies who were to be stirred up against him, with a declaration that this was not to be the end of the infliction. Aram (or Syria in the widest sense) before, and Philistia (or the Philistines) behind, and they devour Israel with open mouth (i. e. ravenously). For all this (or notwithstanding all this) his wrath dees not turn back (from the pursuit or the attack), and still his hand is stretched out. On the meaning of this last clause, vide supra, ch. 5: 25. The Syrians and Philistines are supposed by some to be refer red to, as forming part of the Assyrian army. The reference may however be to separate attacks from these two powers. Before and behind may simply mean on opposite sides, or more specifically to the east and west, which are often thus described in Hebrew, na b=a does not mean in every place (Targum) or on all sides (Lowth)—nor does it mean with all their mouths (Peshito), i. e. the mouths of all their enemies—but with the whole mouth, with the mouth wide open, as expressed by Luther (mit vollem Maul), Calvin (a pleine bouche), and most modern writers. J. H. Michaelis makes nxt b=n mean on account or in consequence of all this. It is clear, however, from the first clause and the whole connexion, that the reference is not to the people’s sin but to their punishment.
12. These continued and repeated strokes are still without effect in bringing the people to repentance. And the people has not turned to him that smote them, and Jehovah of Hosts they have not sought. Sin is de scribed in Scripture as departure from God. Repentance, therefore, is re turning to him. To seek God, in the idiom of Scripture, is to pray to him (Isai. 55: 6), to consult him (Isai. 8: 19), to resort to him for help (Isai. 31: 1), to hold communion with him (Amos 5: 4, 5). Hence it is some times descriptive of a godly life in general (Psalm 14: 2). So here it includes repentance, conversion, and new obedience. Calvin, followed by the English version, makes the vav at the beginning mean because or for. This verse, however, does not assign the reason of the fact recorded in the one preceding, but continues the description. God went on punishing, and the people went on sinning. The strict sense of the particle may therefore be retained. The first verb agrees with es in form as a singular; the second agrees with it in sense as a collective. The preposition *iy, which strictly means until, as far as, is regarded by Cocceius as emphatic and as signify ing that the people, if they turned at all, did not turn far enough. But as this preposition often follows stt) when used in the sense of returning to God by repentance, it may be regarded merely as an idiomatic substitute for bx. A single manuscript reads bs> for is. The unusual combination of the article and suffix in inasn is regarded by Gesenius (Lehrg. p. 658) as a simple anomaly, and by Nordheimer (vol. 2, p. 13) as an emphatic form; but Ewald (§ 516. 3) explains it by supposing in to be not a possessive but an objective suffix, governed by the participle. The difference of construction is the same as in the English phrases, his smiter and the (one) smiting him. God is thus described, as Aben Ezra has observed, in order to intimate that he was the inflicter of their punishment—the Assyrian being merely the rod of his anger (ch. 10: 5)—and also that his stroke sought to lead them to repentance.
13. The next stroke mentioned is a sudden destruction among all ranks of the people, the extremes being designated by two figures drawn from the animal and vegetable world. And Jehovah has cut off from Israel head and tail, branch and rush, in one day. riss does not mean a root (Aben Ezra), nor a branch in general (Kimchi), but a branch of the palm-tree (Gesenius in Comm.) or the tree itself (Gesenius in Thes.). This tree, though now rare in the Holy Land, abounded there of old, especially in the southern part, where several places were named after it (Deut. 34: 3. 2 Chron. 20: 2). Hence it appears on Roman coins as the symbol of Judea. It is highly esteemed in the east, both for beauty and utility. Its branches grow near the top of its lofty trunk and bend towards the ground, as its leaves do also, with a gentle curvature, resembling that of a hand partly closed, from which peculiarity the Hebrew name fiss and the Latin palma seem to be derived. It is here contrasted with the ‘paax, not a smaller branch or twig (Jarchi), but a rush or reed, so called from tax a marsh, because it is in such ground that it chiefly grows. The Targum seems to treat the figures as synonymous, not opposite in meaning, perhaps with some allusion to the Greek word fyepcov. Palm and rush are explained to mean the strong and weak by Kimchi and Cocceius, who refers them specifically to the young men and warriors, as contrasted with the widows and orphans in v. 16. It is best, however, to understand them as denoting more gener ally that which is superior and inferior, including every class in the community. The figures are correctly resolved by the Septuagint (pfyav *a.\ pixoov), and strangely rendered by the Vulgate (incurvantem et refraenantem), perhaps with some allusion to the derivation of the Hebrew words. It is a singular conceit of Gill’s that the use of the terms head and tail was intended to imply that the people had become beasts, which no more follows than it does from the use of the terms branch and rush that they had become plants.
14. To the descriptive figures of the preceding verse, the Prophet now adds a specific application of the first. Jehovah had cut off from Israel, not only in a general sense the upper and lower classes of society, but in a more restricted sense, the wicked rulers, who were the corrupt head of the body politic, and the false prophets who, as their abject adherents, and on account of their hypocrisy and false pretensions to divine authority, might be regarded as its tail, because contemptible and odious, even in comparison with other wicked men, who laid no claim to a religious character. The elder and the favourite (or honourable person), he is the head, and the prophet teaching falsehood, he is the tail. On the meaning of -jpt and D^S Kiiua, vide supra, ch. 3: 2, 3. That the head is not explained to mean the king, may be, as Hendewerk suggests, because the prophecy relates to the time which immediately succeeded the death of Pekah. Henderson transposes the conjunction in the last clause — the prophet and the teacher of lies — but {“HIE is properly a participle, and is needed to qualify fcODS. It is not the prophet, as such, but the prophet teaching falsehood, who is called the tail. The teaching of falsehood does not mean the teaching of traditions (J. H. Michaelis) or of vice (Septuagint), but teaching in the name of God what he has not revealed. The Targum makes K*oa denote a scribe (“istj) or doctor of the law; but it must have its sense of prophet, as denoting one who claims to be inspired. The false prophets are called the tail, not because they were weak (Targum), or of low extraction (Gill), or of a mean spirit, like a dog which wags its tail upon its master (Musculus), nor because their false doctrine was like the poison in the stings of scorpions (Menochius), nor because the civil rulers and religious teachers were the two extremes, between which the mass of the people was included (Vitringa); but because the false prophets were morally the basest of the people, and because they were the servile adherents and supporters of the wicked rulers. With respect both to the head which they followed, and the body of which they were the vilest part, they might be justly called the tail. This verse has been rejected, as a gloss or interpolation, by Houbigant, Koppe, Cube, Eichhorn, Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald and Knobel, on the ground that it interrupts the natural consecution of the passage; that it is too prosaic for a poetical context; thfffnrt contains a superfluous explanation of a common proverbial expresison; that it explains it in a manner inconsistent with the context, as the figures in v. 13 obviously mean the high and the low gener ally; that it explains only one of the two figures in that verse; that it has the very form of an explanatory gloss; that it,, breaks the strophical arrange ment by giving to this strophe a supernumerary verse. To this it may be answered, that correctly understood it does not interrupt the train of thought, but sensibly advances it; that it is not too prosaic for the context, and that if it were, Isaiah was a prophet, not a poet by profession, and was always wise enough to sacrifice rhetoric and rhythm to common sense and inspiration; that if the verse contained an explanation not suggested by the con text, it could not be superfluous; that it is not an explanation of the figures in v. 13, but a more specific application of the first of them; that the Prophet did not make a like use of the second, because it was not equally suited to his purpose of expressing his contempt for the false prophets; that the same form is used in cases where no interpolation is suspected; and lastly, that the strophical arrangement is itself a modern figment, founded on a kind of repetition which is not unusual in animated prose. (Vide supra ad v. 7.) Another answer to the last objection is given in Hendewerk’s commentary on the passage, which, with this exception, is an admirable refutation of the adverse argument, as stated by Gesenius. The interpolation of these words is ascribed by Gesenius to some very ancient Jewish polemic. But if so old, why may it not be a little older, and the work of Isaiah himself, who was certainly no friend of the false prophets? The rhetorical objections to this obvious conclusion are not only insufficient because they are rhetorical, but because the rhetoric itself is bad.
15. This verse gives a reason, not why all classes were to be destroyed, but why the rulers and false prophets had been specially mentioned. It arises, therefore, naturally out of the fourteenth, and thus incidentally proves it to be genuine. The truth expressed and implied is that the leaders of the people had destroyed them and should perish with them. The leaders of this people have been seducers, and the led of them (are) swallowed up (or ruined). On the double meaning of •mustta, and the paronomasia erroneously introduced by some translators, vide supra, ch. 3: 12, where the verb sba occurs in the same connexion. On Ewald’s supposition, that the fourteenth verse was interpolated from that chapter, the verse before us ought to be rejected also. Luther explains Tnma as meaning those who suffer themselves to be led (die sich leiten lassen); Hendewerk, those who were to be, or ought to have been rendered happy (seine zu begliickenden). But even supposing that the Hebrew word was intended to suggest both ideas, it cannot be correct to express one in the first clause and the other in the second, as the original expressions correspond exactly, and the primary sense must be the same in both. The suffix in mttjxis, is omitted as superfluous by the Vulgate and Gesenius. Henderson refers it to “n^xa as its antecedent (led by them); but the true antecedent is DStt (such of the people as are thus misled), and is correctly pointed out as such by Calvin (in eo), Vatablus (ex hoc populo), and others. According to J. D. Michaelis, they are said to be swallowed up in sloughs and pitfalls; according to Jarchi, in ways from which there is no exit. It is more probably, however, a strong figure for losing the way (Luther), or for destruction in general (Calvin).
16. Therefore (because the people are thus incorrigibly impenitent) the Lord will not rejoice over their young men (literally chosen ones, i. e. for military service, the word being used in the -general sense of youths, but seldom without reference to war), and on their orphans and their widows (elsewhere represented as peculiarly the objects of God’s care) he will not have mercy (expressing in the strongest form the extent and severity of the threatened judgments), for every one of them (literally of it, referring to the singular noun people) is profane (or impious) and an evil doer, and every mouth (is) speaking folly (in the strong Hebrew sense of wickedness). For all this his wrath is not turned back, and, still is his hand outstretched. The Vulgate. Aben Ezra, Calvin, Vitringa, Lowth, and Fiirst give to 5]5n the sense of hypocrite or hypocritical. Gesenius, Ewald, and the other modern writers give it the general sense of impious or wicked, as expressed by the Septuagint (atofioi). This explanation is supported by etymological an alogy, the other by rabbinical tradition. Lee, from the analogy of Syriac, explains it to mean heathenish, idolatrous (Hebrew Lexicon, s. v.). The a in SHE is taken as a preposition (of evil, made up or consisting of evil) by Hitzig (vom Argen), Ewald (vom Bosen), DeWette, and Knobel. Gesenius, Umbreit, and the older writers treat it as a participle from ysi. Calvin explains ii^sa 12*1 as implying that they uttered their own wicked ness, betrayed themselves; but it probably means nothing more than that they were wicked in speech as well as act. For ins, Lowth reads mm on the authority of eighteen manuscripts.
17. This verse assigns a reason why God’s hand is still stretched out for the destruction of his people, by describing that destruction as the natural effect of their own wickedness, here likened to a fire beginning near the ground among the thorns and briers, then extending to the undergrowth or brushwood of the forest, which, as it consumes away, ascends in a volume of smoke. For wickedness burneth as the fire, thorns and briers it consumes, then kindles in the thickets of the forest, and they roll themselves up wards, a column (literally, an ascent) of smoke. Most of the older writers translate all the verbs as futures, thus converting the whole verse into a 12 threatening. But the interchange of preterite and future forms, as well as the connexion, seem to show that they should be explained as presents, and as expressing the natural effects of wickedness, in the form of a description or a general proposition. The vav conversive before r.sn shows it to be dependent on the«foregoing verbs and posterior in point of time, a relation which may be expressed in English by exchanging and for then. Hender son gives nsun the specific meaning of idolatry (see Zech. 5: 8-11), but Luther more correctly that of wickedness in general, of heart and life (das gottlose Wesen). Thorns and briers are often used as emblems of the wicked (Mic. 7: 4. Neh. 1: 10. 2 Sam. 23: 6), and their burning as a figure for the punishment of sinners (Isai. 33: 12. Ps. 118: 12. 2 Sam. 23: 7), especially by means of foreign enemies (Isai. 10: 17. 32: 13). Most of the recent German versions render the last Vav so that, in order to show that what precedes is related to what follows as the cause to its effect. The verb i=i«rp, which occurs nowhere else, has been variously derived and explained as meaning to be pulverized (Cocceius, Junius), to move proudly (Castellus, J. D. Michaelis), to ascend (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Calvin). This last sense is combined with that of spreading out by J. H. Michaelis (ut expandant et elevent se.) Gesenius, Ewald, and other modern Germans, adopt the sense of rolling or being rolled together, which is given in the Vulgate and Peshito, and by Saadias, Abulwalid, Jarchi, and Rabbi Parchon. The Vulgate makes the verb agree with nixa (convolvetur superbia fumi), Eichhorn with tsin; but it really agrees with the thickets of the forest—and they (the burning thickets) are rolled (or roll^themselves) together. The meaning of niso is not pride (Vulgate), but elevation or as cent, and in this connexion an ascending body, column, cloud, or volume. It may either be governed by the preposition in understood, or construed as he object of the verb, or put in apposition with its subject. They roll up wards (in or as) a volume of smoke.
18. The figure of a general conflagration is continued in this verse, and then exchanged for a literal description of the miseries produced by civil war. In the wrath of Jehovah of Hosts, the land is darkened with the smoke—or heated by the flame—and the people is like food (or fuel) of fire—one another (literally, man his brother) they do not spare. Most writers understand the n at the beginning in the sense of by or through, as denoting the cause or the means by which the effect is produced. Thus Hendewerk observes that the displeasure of Jehovah is described as the second source of misery; and Henderson says that “ instead of being further represented as resulting from wickedness, the conflagration is re solved into the anger of God as the avenger of sin.” But this is not necessarily the meaning of the particle, and in ch. 13: 13, where the same phrase occurs—in the wroth of Jehovah of Hosts, and in the day of his fierce anger—the a in one clause seems to mean the same thing as fc’nain the other. It is probable therefore that in this case also it denotes not the cause but the time of the event, and should not be rendered by or through, but simply int i. e. in the time or during. There is then no departure from the import of the figure in v. 17. That the sufferings of Israel were produced by the divine wrath, is abundantly implied though not expressed.—tsrso, which occurs only here, has been variously derived and explained as meaning to tremble (Peshito), to be disturbed (Vulgate), to be smitten (Saadias), to be wasted (Gesenius in Lex. Man.) etc. Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, the English Version, Vitringa. Lowth, J. D. Michaelis, Barnes, and Umbreit, make it mean to be darkened, which agrees well with the figures of the foregoing verse. But Gesenius (in Thes.), Rosenmiiller, Maurer, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, Knobel, follow the Septuagint and Targum and the Arabic analogy, in giving it the sense of being burnt or burnt up. The agreement of Y*& with a masculine verb, here and in a few other cases (e. g. Gen. 13: 6. Ps. 105: 30), may be resolved into the rule of Hebrew syntax, that the verb, when it stands before its subject, often takes the simplest form without regard to the distinction of genders.—r&sxa, a derivative of bas to devour, is peculiar not only to this book, but to this chapter. It denotes not the act of burning or consuming (Lee, Heb. Lex.), but the thing consumed. The particle before it is omitted by Gesenius and DeWette, but is really important as denoting that the language of the verse is metaphorical. The grammatical subject of iVorr is not iirx, but the people understood. The original construction is retained in the versions of Cocceius, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, Barnes, and Ewald. The word brother may have merely its idiomatic meaning of another person, or be treated as emphatic, and as meaning that the nearest ties of blood were disregarded (Calvin). Kimchi supposes that although the figure of a conflagration seems to be dropped in the last clause, there is really a tacit allusion to the mutual ignition of one tree or piece of wood by another.
19. The horrors of civil war are now presented under the fearful image of insatiable hunger, leading men to devour their own flesh. And he tears on the right hand and is hungry still, and devours on the left and still they are not satisfied; each the flesh of his own arm, they devour. Ewald refers the first clause to the past and the second to the present; Umbreit the first to the present and the second to the future. But the very inter mingling of the past and future forms shows that the whole was meant to be descriptive. The first verb has been variously rendered to turn aside (Septuagint, Vulgate), to withdraw one’s self (Pagninus, Montanus), to distribute (Schmidius), to plunder (Targum, Jarchi, Kimchi, Luther), to snatch (Calvin, Grotius, English Version, Lowth); but the true sense seems to be to cut or tear (Junius, Cocceius, Henderson), particularly with the teeth (De Dieu), and thence to devour (Gesenius, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel). The English version seems to make this verb agree with urx in v. 18 (he shall snatch); Calvin, Cocceius and Vitringa, with a distributive pro noun understood (rapiet quisque); J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans better still with an indefinite subject (one devours or they devour). The Prophet sees one assailing the other on the right, and the other in turn at tacking him upon the left, and this double subject, corresponding to a man and his brother in verse 18, may have given occasion to the plural forms isaas and ^3^, corresponding to ib^r^, the plural verbs referring to the people collectively, the singular nouns to the component individuals. The Targum explains right and left as meaning south and north; but they simply denote that the devouring should be mutual and extend in all directions. The flesh of his own arm is explained to mean the wealth of his kindred by the Targum (ms^p ^^) and Grotius (res cognatorum); but the figures evidently have a stronger meaning. Eating and fighting are cognate ideas in the Hebrew etymology (compare cnb and c^?); but in this case the additional idea, that the fighting is between near kinsmen, is expressed by the strong figure of devouring one’s own flesh, while the special mention of the arm may imply (as Hitzig and Hendewerk suggest) that the mutual destroyers ought to have been mutual protectors. Knobel indeed objects to this as a far-fetched explanation, and supposes simply an allusion to the fact that starving men do actually gnaw their arms, as the most convenient and accessible portion of the body. Gesenius, Rosenmuller, and Maurer give to arm itself the sense of neighbour, which is hardly justified by Jer. 19: 9. Still less ground is there for an emendation of the text by reading isn for Wf, as proposed by Seeker and approved by Lowth, on the authority of the Chaldee paraphrase (n^ip) and the Alexandrian text of the Septuagint (jov ad&yov avrov) which varies from the common reading (jov @Qa%iovog avvov).
20. The application of the figures in v. 19, is now made plain by the Prophet himself, who has been drawing no imaginary scene. It is Israel, the chosen race, that feeds on its own flesh. They devour each the flesh of his own arm—Manasseh (devours) Ephraim, and Ephraim Manasseh—and together they (are) against Judah. For all this his wrath is not turned lack and still his hand (is) stretched out. The tribes here specified are chosen for two reasons: first, because Judah and Joseph were the most important branches of the stock of Israel, as well before as after the disrup tion; and secondly, because the tribes of Ephraim and Manasseh were more nearly related to each other than to any of the rest, and therefore their hostility afforded the most striking illustration of the mutual rancour which the Prophet had described as prevalent. The Targum, followed by Jarchi, greatly weakens the effect.of the first clause by explaining nx to be the preposition with, implying merely the conjunction of these two tribes against Judah, without any intimation of their mutual hostility. The repetition of the names in that case would be perfectly unmeaning. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Umbreit, also explain P.X as a preposition, but in the sense of against, which it seldom has, and which is in this case very far from being obvious. Ewald, DeWette, and Knobel, correctly adhere to the old construction given in the Septuagint, which takes r.x as the sign of the objective or accusative, and repeats the verb devour between the two proper names. Vitringa goes still further and makes all the names accusatives (Ephraimum Manassen, Manassen Ephraimum), which leaves the verb without a subject in the sentence, and wholly overlooks the objective particle. In the next clause various verbs have been supplied—they shall besiege (Septuagint), they shall unite (Targum), they make an attack (Augusti):—but the simplest method is to supply the verb of existence are or shall be. Hitzig denies that any joint action against Judah is ascribed to Manasseh and Ephraim. But vim seldom if ever means alike or equally; the cases cited by Gesenius (Tbes. torn. 2. p. 589) may all be resolved into examples of the usual and proper sense, at once, together, implying unity of time, place, and action. Eichhorn’s proposal to reject this clause as a gloss, upon the ground that it interrupts the sense and is at variance with the context (Hebr. Proph. II. p. 219), although not more unreasonable than the other propositions of the same kind which have been already stated, is nevertheless sufficiently ab surd. Not only is it common for intestine wars to give occasion and give place to foreign ones, as Gesenius most truly says; but this clause really continues the description and adds greatly to its force, by suggesting the idea that the mutual enmity of these two kindred tribes could only be exceeded by their common hatred to their common relative, the tribe of Judah. Grotius and Junius would refer this verse to the time of Sennacherib’s invasion; but the kingdom of the ten tribes was then no longer in existence and there seems to be no ground for Junius’s assertion or conjecture, that the conquered Israelites were forced to serve in the Assyrian army against Judah. The allusions of the verse are not to one exclusive period, but to a protracted series of events. The intestine strifes of Ephraim and Manasseh although not recorded in detail, may be inferred from various incidental statements. Of their ancient rivalry we have examples in the history of Gideon (Judges &: 1-3) and Jephtha (Judges 12: 1-6); and as to later times, it is observed by Vitringa that of all who succeeded Jeroboam the Second on the throne of Israel, Pekahiah alone appears to have attained it without treachery or bloodshed. That Manasseh and Ephraim were both against Judah, may refer either to their constant enmity or to particular attacks. No sooner did one party gain the upper hand in the kingdom of the ten tribes, than it seems to have addressed itself to the favourite work of ha rassing or conquering Judah, as in the case of Pekah, who invaded it almost as soon as he had waded to the throne through the blood of Pekahiah.—The repetition in the last clause intimates that even these extreme evils should be followed by still worse; that these were but the beginning of sorrows: that the end was not yet.
