



Produced by Charles Bowen, from images obtained from Google Books.




Transcriber's Note: Images taken from the 1861 edition, found at
Books.Google.com., are the source of the text used for this ebook. This
original book was from Harvard University and digitized in 2006.

Unclear or missing punctuation marks were corrected by reference to the
1856 edition of this work.

The Latin diphthong oe is expressed by [oe].

Greek words are directly transliterated using the English equivalents
of the Greek; the Greek eta is transliterated as e and omega as o.
Diacritic marks are omitted with the exception of the initial hard
breathing mark which is indicated by an "h" before the initial vowel of
the word.

Hebrew words, which in this book are mainly represented without
the vowel and pronunciation points, are transcribed as follows:

Alef   = a                     Lahmed     = l
Bet    = b                     Mem        = m (final = M)
Gimel  = g                     Nun        = n (final = N)
Dalet  = d                     Samekh     = s
He     = h                     Ahyin      = i
Vav    = v                     Peh        = p (final = P)
Zayin  = z                     Tsadi      = c (final = C)
Het    = H                     Qof        = q
Tet    = T                     Resh       = r
Yod    = i                     Shin       = w
Kahf   = k (final = K)         Tav        = t




[Pg i]







                                CLARK'S


                                FOREIGN


                          THEOLOGICAL LIBRARY



                               NEW SERIES.
                                 VOL. II.



            Hengstenberg's Christology of the Old Testament.
                                 VOL. II.



                               EDINBURGH:
                    T. & T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
       LONDON: J. GLADDING; WARD AND CO.; AND JACKSON AND WALFORD
                         DUBLIN: JOHN ROBERTSON

                               MDCCCLXI.


[Pg ii]
[Blank Page]


[Pg iii]




                               CHRISTOLOGY

                                   OF

                           THE OLD TESTAMENT,

                                  AND A

                  COMMENTARY ON THE MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS



                                   BY
                           E. W. HENGSTENBERG,
                   DR. AND PROF. OF THEOL. IN BERLIN.



                    SECOND EDITION GREATLY IMPROVED.



                       TRANSLATED FROM THE GERMAN
                                 BY THE
                        THE REV. THEODORE MEYER.
               HEBREW TUTOR IN THE NEW COLLEGE, EDINBURGH.


                               VOLUME II.


                               EDINBURGH:
                   T. AND T. CLARK, 38, GEORGE STREET.
      LONDON: HAMILTON, ADAMS, AND CO.; SIMPKIN, MARSHALL, AND CO.;
            WARD AND CO.; JACKSON AND WALFORD, ETC. DUBLIN:
                 JOHN ROBERTSON, AND HODGES AND SMITH.

                                MDCCCLXI.


[Pg iv]




                                 NOTICE.
    _This Work is copyright in this country by arrangement with the
                                 Author._


[Pg v]




                            LIST OF CONTENTS.


                                                                Page
MESSIANIC PREDICTIONS IN THE PROPHETS.
   THE PROPHET ISAIAH.
      General Preliminary Remarks,                                 1
      Chap. ii.-iv.--The Sprout of the Lord,                      10
      Chap. vii.--Immanuel,                                       26
      Chap. viii. 23-ix. 6--Unto us a Child is born,              66
      Chap. ix. 1-7,                                              75
      Chap. xi., xii.--The Twig of Jesse,                         94
      On Matthew ii. 23,                                         106
      Chap. xii.,                                                133
      Chaps. xiii. 1-xiv. 27,                                    135
      Chaps. xvii., xviii.,                                      137
      Chap. xix.,                                                141
      Chap. xxiii.--The Burden upon Tyre,                        146
      Chaps. xxiv.-xxvii.,                                       149
      Chaps. xxviii.-xxxiii.,                                    154
      Chap. xxxv.,                                               158
      General Preliminary Remarks on Chaps, xl.-lxvi.,           163
      Chap. xlii. 1-9,                                           196
      Chap. xlix. 1-9,                                           226
      Chap. 1. 4-11,                                             246
      Chap. li. 16,                                              256
      Chaps. lii. 13-liii. 12,                                   259
      I. History of the Interpretation.
         A. With the Jews,                                       311
         B. History of the Interpretation with the Christians,   319
      II. The Arguments against the Messianic Interpretation,    327
      III. The Arguments in favour of the Messianic
           Interpretation,                                       330
      IV. Examination of the Non-Messianic Interpretation,       334
      Chap. lv. 1-5,                                             343
      Chap. lxi. 1-3,                                            351
   THE PROPHET ZEPHANIAH,                                        356
   THE PROPHET JEREMIAH.
      General Preliminary Remarks,                               362
      Chap. iii. 14-17,                                          373
      Chap. xxiii. 1-8,                                          398
      Chap. xxxi. 31-40,                                         424
      Chap. xxxiii. 14-26,                                       459


[Pg vi]
[Blank Page]


[Pg 1]




                           THE PROPHET ISAIAH.




                      GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.


Isaiah is the principal prophetical figure in the first period of
canonical prophetism, _i.e._, the Assyrian period, just as Jeremiah is
in the second, _i.e._, the Babylonian. With Isaiah are connected in the
kingdom of Judah: Joel, Obadiah, and Micah; in the kingdom of Israel:
Hosea, Amos, and Jonah.

The name "Isaiah" signifies the "Salvation of the Lord." In this name
we have the key-note of his prophecies, just as the name Jeremiah: "The
Lord casts down," indicates the nature of his prophecies, in which the
prevailing element is entirely of a threatening character. That the
proclamation of salvation occupies a very prominent place in Isaiah,
was seen even by the Fathers of the Church. _Jerome_ says: "I shall
expound Isaiah in such a manner that he shall appear not as a prophet
only, but as an Evangelist and an Apostle;" and in another passage:
"Isaiah seems to me to have uttered not a prophecy but a Gospel." And
_Augustine_ says, _De Civ. Dei_, 18, c. 29, that, according to the
opinion of many, Isaiah, on account of his numerous prophecies of
Christ and the Church, deserved the name of an Evangelist rather than
that of a Prophet. When, after his conversion, _Augustine_ applied to
_Ambrose_ with the question, which among the Sacred Books he should
read in preference to all others, he proposed to him Isaiah, "because
before all others it was he who had more openly declared the Gospel and
the calling of the Gentiles." (_Aug. Conf._ ix. 5.) With the Fathers of
the Church _Luther_ coincides. He says in commendation of Isaiah: "He
is full of loving, comforting, cheering words for all poor consciences,
and wretched, afflicted hearts." Of course, there is in Isaiah no want
of severe reproofs and threatenings. If it were [Pg 2] otherwise, he
would have gone beyond the boundary by which true prophetism is
separated from false. "There is in it," as Luther says, "enough of
threatenings and terrors against the hardened, haughty, obdurate heads
of the wicked, if it might be of some use." But the threatenings never
form the close in Isaiah; they always at last run out into the promise;
and while, for example, in the great majority of Jeremiah's prophecies,
the promise, which cannot be wanting in any true prophet, is commonly
only short, and hinted at, sometimes consisting only of words which are
thrown into the midst of the several threatenings, _e. g._, iv. 27:
"Yet will I not make a full end,"--in Isaiah the stream of consolation
flows in the richest fulness. The promise absolutely prevails in the
second part, from chap. xl.-lxvi. The reason of this peculiarity is to
be sought for chiefly in the historical circumstances. Isaiah lived at
a time in which, in the kingdom of Judah, the corruption was far from
having already reached its greatest height,--in which there still
existed, in that kingdom, a numerous "election" which gathered round
the prophet as their spiritual centre. With a view to this circle,
Isaiah utters the words: "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people." The
contemporary prophets of the kingdom of the ten tribes, which was
poisoned in its very first origin, found a different state of things;
the field there was already ripe for the harvest of judgment. And at
the time of Jeremiah, Judah had become like her apostate sister. At
that time it was not so much needed to comfort the miserable, as to
terrify sinners in their security. It was only after the wrath of God
had manifested itself in deeds, only after the judgment of God had been
executed upon Jerusalem, or was immediately at hand,--it was only then
that, in Jeremiah, and so in Ezekiel also, the stream of promise broke
forth without hinderance.

Chronology is, throughout, the principle according to which the
Prophecies of Isaiah are arranged. In the first six chapters, we obtain
a survey of the Prophet's ministry under Uzziah and Jotham. Chap. vii.
to x. 4 belongs to the time of Ahaz. From chap. x. 4 to the close of
chap. xxxv. every thing belongs to the time of the Assyrian invasion in
the fourteenth year of Hezekiah; in the face of which invasion the
prophetic gift of Isaiah was displayed as it had never been before. The
section, chap. xxxvi.-xxxix., furnishes us with the historical
commentary on the preceding [Pg 3] prophecies from the Assyrian period,
and forms, at the same time, the transition to the second part, which
still belongs to the same period, and the starting point of which is
Judah's deliverance from Asshur. In this most remarkable year of the
Prophet's life--a year rich in the manifestation of God's glory in
judgment and mercy--his prophecy flowed out in full streams, and spread
to every side. Not the destinies of Judah only, but those of the
Gentile nations also are drawn within its sphere. The Prophet does not
confine himself to the events immediately at hand, but in his ecstatic
state, the state of an elevated, and, as it were, armed consciousness,
in which he was during this whole period, his eye looks into the
farthest distances. He sees, especially, that, at some future period,
the Babylonian power, which began, even in his time, to germinate,
would take the place of the Assyrian,--that, like it, it would find the
field of Judah white for the harvest,--that, for this oppressor of the
world, destruction is prepared by _Koresh_ (Cyrus), the conqueror from
the East, and that he will liberate the people from their exile; and,
at the close of the development, he beholds the Saviour of the world,
whose image he depicts in the most glowing colours.

Isaiah has especially brought out the view of the Prophetic and
Priestly offices of Christ, while in the former prophecies it was
almost alone the Kingly office which appeared; it is only in Deut.
xviii. that the Prophetic office, and in Ps. cx. that the Priestly
office, is pointed at. Of the two states of Christ, it is the doctrine
of the state of humiliation, the doctrine of the suffering Christ,
which here meets us, while formerly it was the state of exaltation
which was prominently brought before us,--although Isaiah too can very
well describe it when it is necessary to meet the fears regarding the
destruction of the Theocracy by the assaults of the powerful heathen
nations. The first attempt at a description of the humbled, suffering,
and expiating Christ, is found in chap. xi. 1. The real seat of this
proclamation is, however, in the second part, which is destined more
for the election, than for the whole nation. In chap. xlii. we meet the
servant of God, who, as a Saviour meek and lowly in heart, does not
break the bruised reed, nor quench the smoking flax, and by this
merciful love establishes righteousness on the whole earth. In chap.
xlix., the Prophet describes how the covenant-people requite with
ingratitude the faithful labours of the Servant of God, but that [Pg 4]
the Lord, to recompense Him for the obstinacy of Israel, gives Him the
Gentiles for an inheritance. In chap. l. we have presented to us that
aspect of the sufferings of the Servant of God which is common to
Christ and His people--viz., how, in fulfilling His calling. He offered
His back to the smiters, and did not hide His face from shame and
spitting. Then, finally, in chap. liii.--that culminating point of the
prophecy of the Old Testament--Christ is placed before our eyes in His
highest work, in His atoning and vicarious suffering, as the truth of
both the Old Testament high-priest, and the Old Testament sin-offering.

There are still the following Messianic features which are peculiar to
Isaiah. A clear Old Testament witness for the divinity of Christ is
offered by chap. ix. 5 (6); the birth by a virgin, closely connected
with His divinity, is announced in chap. vii. 14; according to chap.
viii. 23 (ix. 1.) Galilee, and, in general, the country surrounding the
Sea of Gennesareth, being that part of the country which hitherto had
chiefly been covered with disgrace, are, in a very special manner, to
be honoured by the appearance of the Saviour, who shall come to have
mercy upon the miserable, and to seek that which was lost. Isaiah has,
further, first taught that, by the redemption, the consequences of the
Fall would disappear in the irrational creation also, and that it
should return to paradisaic innocence, chap. xi. 6-9. He has first
announced to the people of God the glorious truth, that death, as it
had not existed in the beginning, should, at the end also, be expelled,
chap. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19. The healing powers which by Christ should be
imparted to miserable mankind, Isaiah has described in chap xxxv. in
words, which by the fulfilment have, in a remarkable manner, been
confirmed.

Let us endeavour to form, from the single scattered features which
occur in the prophecies of Isaiah, a comprehensive view of his
prospects into the future.

The announcement first uttered by Moses of an impending exile of the
people, and desolation of the country, is brought before us by Isaiah
in the first six chapters, in the prophecies belonging to the time of
Uzziah and Jotham, at which the future had not yet been so clearly laid
open before the Prophet as it was at a later period, at the time of
Ahaz, and, very especially, in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah. A
reference to [Pg 5] the respective announcements of the Pentateuch is
found in chap. xxxvii. 26, where, in opposition to the imagination of
the King of Asshur, that, by his own power, he had penetrated as a
conqueror as far as Judah, Isaiah asks him whether he had not heard
that the Lord, long ago and from ancient times, had formed such a
resolution regarding His people. These words can be referred only to
the threatenings of the Pentateuch, which a short-sighted criticism
endeavoured to ascribe to a far later period, without considering that
the germ of this knowledge of the future is found in the Decalogue
also, the genuineness of which is, at present, almost unanimously
conceded: "In order that thy (Israel's) days may be long in the land
which the Lord thy God giveth thee."

In the solemnly introduced short summary of the history of the
covenant-people, in chap. vi., there is, after the announcement of the
impending complete desolation of the country and the carrying away of
its inhabitants in vers. 11, 12, the indication of a _second_ judgment
which will not less make an end, in ver. 13: "But yet there is a tenth
part in it, and it shall again be destroyed;" and this goes hand in
hand with the promise that the _election_ shall become partakers of the
Messianic salvation.

The Prophet clearly sees that, by the _Syrico-Ephraemitic_ war, the
full realization of that threatening of the Pentateuch will not be
brought about, as far as Judah is concerned; that here a faint prelude
only to the real fulfilment is the point in question. Although the
allied kings speak in chap. vii. 6: "Let us go up against Judea and vex
it, and let us conquer it for us, and set a king in the midst of it,
even the son of Tabeal," the Lord speaks in chap. vii. 7: "It shall not
stand, neither shall it come to pass." And although the heart of the
king and the heart of his people were moved as the trees of the wood
are moved with the wind, the Prophet says: "Fear not, let not thy heart
be tender for the tails of those two smoking firebrands."

It is Asshur that shall do more for the realization of that divine
decree first revealed by Moses. It is he who, immediately after that
expedition against Judah, shall break the power of the kingdom of the
ten tribes, chap. viii. 4: "Before the child shall be able to cry: 'My
father and my mother,'the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria
shall be carried before the King of [Pg 6] Assyria." The communion of
guilt into which it has entered with Damascus shall also implicate it
in a communion of punishment with it, chap. xvii. 3. The adversaries of
Rezin shall devour Israel with open mouth, chap. ix. 11, 12. Yea Asshur
shall, some time afterwards, put an end altogether to the kingdom of
Israel; "Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken that
it shall not be a people any more," chap. vii. 8. Upon Judah also
severe sufferings shall be inflicted by Asshur. He shall invade and
devastate their land, chap. vii. 17, and chap. viii. He shall
irresistibly penetrate to the neighbourhood of Jerusalem, chap. x.
28-32. But when he is just preparing to inflict the mortal blow upon
the head of the people of God, the Lord shall put a stop to him: "He
shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron, and Lebanon shall
fall by the mighty one," chap. x. 34. "Asshur shall be broken in the
land of the Lord, and upon His mountains be trodden under foot; and his
yoke shall depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their
shoulders," chap. xiv. 25. "And Asshur shall fall with the sword not of
a man," chap. xxxi. 8. These prophecies found their fulfilment in the
destruction of Sennacherib's host before Jerusalem,--an event which no
human ingenuity could have known even a day beforehand. But Isaiah does
not content himself with promising to trembling Zion the help of God
against Asshur in that momentary calamity. In harmony with Hosea and
Micah, he promises to Judah, in general, security from Asshur. He says
to Hezekiah, after that danger was over, in chap. xxxviii. 6: "And I
will deliver thee and this city out of the hand of the King of Assyria,
and I will defend this city."

Behind the Assyrian kingdom, the Prophet beholds a new power
germinating, viz., the Babylonian or Chaldean; and he announces most
distinctly and repeatedly that from this shall proceed a comprehensive
execution of the threatenings against unfaithful Judah. According to
chap. xxiii. 13, the Chaldeans overturn the Assyrian monarchy, and
conquer proud Tyre which had resisted the assault of the Assyrians.
Shinar or Babylon appears in chap. xi. 11, in the list of the places to
which Judah has been removed in punishment. In chap. xiii. 1-xiv. 27,
Babylon is, for the first time, distinctly and definitely mentioned as
the threatening power of the future, by which Judah is to be carried
into captivity. The corresponding announcement in chap. xxxix. is so
[Pg 7] closely and intimately interwoven with the historical context,
that even _Gesenius_ did not venture to deny its origin by Isaiah, just
as he was compelled also to acknowledge the genuineness of the prophecy
against Tyre, in which the Babylonian dominion is most distinctly
foretold, and even the duration of that dominion is fixed. The 70 years
of Jeremiah have here already their foundation.

The Prophet sees distinctly and definitely that Egypt, the rival
African world's power, on which the sharp-sighted politicians of his
time founded their hope for deliverance, would not be equal to the
Asiatic world's power representing itself in the Assyrian and
Babylonian phases. He knows what he could not know from any other
source than by immediate communication of the Spirit of God, that, by
its struggle against the Asiatic power, Egypt would altogether lose its
old political importance, and would never recover it; compare remarks
on chap. xix.

As the power which is to overthrow the Babylonian Empire appear, in
chap. xxxiii. 17, the Medes. In chap. xxi. 2, Elam, which, according to
the _usus loquendi_ of Isaiah, means Persia, is mentioned besides
Media. This power, and at its head, the conqueror from the East, Cyrus,
will bring deliverance to Judah. By it they obtain a restoration to
their native land.[1] Nevertheless Elam appears in chap. xxii. 16 as
the representative of the world's power oppressing Judah in the future;
and from chap. xi. 11 we are likewise led to expect that the world's
power will in future shew itself in an Elamitic phase also, and that
the difference between Babel and Elam is one of degree only, just as,
indeed, it appeared in history; comp. Neh. ix. 36, 37.

An intimation of an European phasis of the world's power, hostile to
the kingdom of God, is to be found in chap. xi. 11.

After the Kingdom of God has, for such protracted periods, been subject
to the world's power, the relation will suddenly be reversed; at the
end of the days the mountain of the house of the Lord shall be exalted
above all the hills, and all nations shall flow into it, chap. ii. 2.

This great change shall be accomplished by the Messiah, chaps. iv.,
ix., xi., xxxiii. 17, who proceeds from the house of [Pg 8] David,
chap. ix. 6 (7), lv. 3, but only after it has sunk down to the utmost
lowliness, chap. xi. 1. With the human, He combines the divine nature.
This appears not only from the names which are given to Him in chap.
ix. 5 (6), but also from the works which are assigned to Him,--works by
far exceeding human power. He rules over the whole earth, according to
chap. xi.; He slays, according to xi. 4, the wicked with the breath of
His mouth (compare chap. l. 11, where likewise He appears as a partaker
of the omnipotent punitive power of God); He removes the consequences
of sin even from the irrational creation, chap. xi. 6-9; by His
absolute righteousness He is enabled to become the substitute of the
whole human race, and thereby to accomplish their salvation resting on
this substitution, chap. liii.

The Messiah appears at first in the form of a servant, low and humble,
chap. xi. 1, liii. 2. His ministry is quiet and concealed, chap. xlii.
2, as that of a Saviour who with tender love applies himself to the
miserable, chap. xlii. 3, lxi. 1. At first it is limited to Israel,
chap. xlix. 1-6, where it is enjoyed especially by the most degraded of
all the parts of the country, viz., that around the sea of Galilee,
chap. viii. 23 (ix. 1.) Severe sufferings will be inflicted upon Him in
carrying out His ministry. These proceed from the same people whom He
has come to raise up, and to endow (according to chap. xlii. 6, xlix.
8), with the full truth of the covenant into which the Lord has entered
with them. The Servant of God bears these suffering's with unbroken
courage. They bring about, through His mediation, the punishment of God
upon those from whom they proceeded, and become the reason why the
salvation passes over to the Gentiles, by whose deferential homage the
Servant of God is indemnified for what He has lost in the Jews, chap.
xlix. 1-9, l. 4-11. (The foundation for the detailed announcement in
these passages is given already in the sketch in chap. vi.,--according
to which an election only of the people attain to salvation, while the
mass becomes a prey to destruction.) But it is just by these
sufferings, which issue at last in a violent death, that the Servant of
God reaches the full height of His destination. They possess a
vicarious character, and effect the reconciliation of a whole sinful
world, chap. lii. 13-liii. 12. Subsequently to the suffering, and on
the ground of it, begins the exercise of the Kingly office of Christ,
chap. liii. 12. He brings law and righteousness to the [Pg 9] Gentile
world, chap. xlii. 1; light into their darkness, chap. xlii. 6. He
becomes the centre around which the whole Gentile world gathers, chap.
xi. 10: "And it shall come to pass in that day, the root of Jesse which
shall stand for an ensign of the people, to it shall the Gentiles seek,
and His rest shall be glory;" comp. chap. lx., where the delighted eye
of the Prophet beholds how the crowds of the nations from the whole
earth turn to Zion; chap. xviii., where the future reception of the
Ethiopians into the Kingdom of God is specially prophecied; chap. xix.,
according to which Egypt turns to the God of Israel, and by the tie of
a common love to Him, is united with Asshur, his rival in the time of
the Prophet, and so likewise with Israel, which has so much to suffer
from him; chap. xxiii., according to which, in the time of salvation.
Tyre also does homage to the God of Israel. The Servant of God becomes,
at the same time, the _Witness_, and the Prince and Lawgiver of the
nations, chap. lv. 4. Just as the Spirit of the Lord rests upon Him,
chap. xi. 2, xlii. 1, lxi. 1, so there takes place in His days an
outpouring of the Holy Spirit, chap. xxxii. 15, xliv. 3, comp. with
chap. liv. 13. Sin is put an end to by Him, chap. xi. 9, and an end is
put especially to war, chap. ii. 4. The Gentiles gathered to the Lord
become at last the medium of His salvation for the covenant-people, who
at first had rejected it, chap. xi. 12, lx. 9, lxvi. 20, 21. The end is
the restoration of the paradisaic condition, chap. xi. 6-9, lxv. 25;
the new heavens and the new earth, chap. lxv. 17, lxvi. 22; but the
wicked shall inherit eternal condemnation, chap. lxvi. 24.



[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_: There are no predictions in reference to the
temporal deliverance of the Jewish Church, in which the Prophet shews
himself more than in those which relate to the downfall of the
Babylonian Empire, and the deliverance of the people of God by Cyrus.]



[Pg 10]




                       THE PROPHECY--CHAP. II.-IV.
                         THE SPROUT OF THE LORD.


It has been already proved, in Vol. i., p. 416 ff., that this discourse
belongs to the first period of the Prophet's ministry. It consists of
three parts. In the first, chap. ii. 2-4, the Prophet draws a picture
of the Messianic time, at which the Kingdom of God, now despised,
should be elevated above all the kingdoms of the world, should exercise
an attractive power over the Gentiles, and should cause peace to dwell
among them; comp. Vol. i., p. 437 ff. In the second part, from chap.
ii. 5-iv. 1, the Prophet describes the prevailing corruption, exhorts
to repentance, threatens divine judgments. This part is introduced, and
is connected with the preceding, by the admonition in ii. 5, addressed
to the people, to prepare, by true godliness, for a participation in
that blessedness, to beware lest they should be excluded through their
own fault. In the third part, chap. iv. 2-6, the prophet returns to the
proclamation of salvation, so that the whole is, as it were, surrounded
by the promise. It was necessary that this should be prominently
brought out, in order that sinners might not only be terrified by fear,
but also allured by hope, to repentance,--and in order that the elect
might not imagine that the sin of the masses, and the judgment
inflicted in consequence of it, did away with the mercy of the Lord
towards His people, and with His faithfulness to His promises.
Salvation does not come without judgment. This feature, by which true
prophetism is distinguished from false, which, divesting God of His
righteousness, announced salvation to unreformed sinners, to the whole
rude mass of the people,--this feature is once more prominently brought
out in ver. 4. But salvation for the elect comes as necessarily as
judgment does upon the sinners. In the midst of the deepest abasement
of the people of God, God raises from out of the midst of them the
Saviour by whom they are raised to the highest glory, chap. iv. 2. They
are installed into the dignity of the saints of God, after the penitent
ones have been renewed by His Spirit, and the [Pg 11] obstinate sinners
have been exterminated by His judgment, ver. 3, 4. God's gracious
presence affords them protection from their enemies, and from all
tribulation and danger, ver. 5, 6.

The first part, in which Isaiah follows Micah (comp. the arguments in
proof of originality in Micah, Vol. i., p. 413 ff.), has already been
expounded on a former occasion. We have here only to answer the
question, why it is that the Prophet opens his discourse with a
proclamation of salvation borrowed from Micah? His object certainly was
to render the minds of the people susceptible of the subsequent
admonition and reproof, by placing at the head a promise which had
already become familiar and precious to the people. The position which
the Messianic proclamation occupies in Isaiah is altogether
misunderstood if, with _Kleinert_ and _Ewald_, we assume that the
passage does not, in Isaiah, belong to the real substance of the
prophecy; that it is merely placed in front as a kind of text, the
abuse and misinterpretation of which the Prophet meets in that which
follows, so that the sense would be: the blessed time promised by
former prophets will come _indeed_, but _only_ after severe, rigorous
judgments upon all who had forsaken Jehovah. It is especially ver. 5
which militates against this interpretation, where, in the words: "Come
ye and let us walk in the light of the Lord,"[1] the prophet gives an
_express declaration_ as to the object of the description which he has
placed in front, and expresses himself in regard to it in perfect
harmony [Pg 12] with Heb. iv. 1: [Greek: phobethomen oun mepote
kataleipomenes epangelias ... doke tis ex humon husterekenai.] This
shows, that after the manner of an evangelical preacher, and in
conformity with his name, he wishes to allure to repentance by pointing
to the great salvation of the future;--that the [Greek: engike he
basileia ton ouranon] of the first part serves as a foundation to the
[Greek: metanoeite oun] of the second.

The threatening of punishment contained in the second part is destitute
of any particular reference. It bears a general character,
comprehending the whole of the mischief with which the Lord is to visit
the unfaithfulness of His people. Most thoroughly was the animating
idea realized in the Roman catastrophe, the consequence of which is the
helplessness which still presses upon the people. The preparatory
steps were the decay of the people at the time of Ahaz--especially
the Chaldean overthrow--and, generally, everything which the people
had to suffer in the time of the dominion of the Assyrian, Chaldean,
Medo-Persian, and Greek kingdoms. As none of these kingdoms were as yet
on the stage, or in sight, it is quite natural that the threatening
here keeps altogether within general terms; it was given to Isaiah
himself afterwards to individualize it much more.

It is with the third part only that we have here more particularly to
employ ourselves.

Ver. 2. "_In that day the Sprout of the Lord becomes for beauty and
glory, and the fruit of the land for exaltation and ornament, to the
escaped of Israel._"

Ver. 3. "_And it shall come to pass, he that was left in Zion, and was
spared in Jerusalem, shall be called holy, every one that is written to
life in Jerusalem._"

Ver. 4. "_When the Lord has washed away the filth of the daughters of
Zion, and shall remove the blood of Jerusalem from the midst thereof by
the spirit of right and the spirit of destruction._"

Ver. 5. "_And the Lord creates over the place of Mount Zion, and over
her assemblies clouds by day and smoke, and the brightness of flaming
fire by night, for above all glory is a covering._"

Ver. 6. "_And a tabernacle shall be for a shadow by day from the heat,
and, for a refuge and covert from storm and from rain._"

Ver. 2. "_In that day_" _i.e._, not by any means _after_ the suffering,
but _in the midst of it_, comp. chap. iii. 18; iv. 1, where, by [Pg 13]
the words "in that day," contemporaneousness is likewise expressed.
Parallel is chap. ix. 1 (2), where the people that walketh in darkness
seeth a great light. According to Micah v. 2 (3) also, the people are
given up to the dominion of the world's powers until the time that she
who is bearing has brought forth. Inasmuch as the Messianic
proclamation bears the same general comprehensive character as the
threatening of punishment, and includes in itself beginning and end,
the suffering may partly also reach into the Messianic time. It
dismisses from its discipline those who are delivered up to it,
gradually only, after they have become ripe for a participation in the
Messianic salvation.--There cannot be any doubt that, by the "_Sprout
of the Lord_" the Messiah is designated,--an explanation which we meet
with so early as in the Chaldee Paraphrast ([Hebrew: bedna hhva ihi
mwiHa dii lHdvh vliqr]), from which even _Kimchi_ did not venture to
differ, which was in the Christian Church, too, the prevailing one, and
which Rationalism was the first to give up. The Messiah is here quite
in His proper place. The Prophet had, in chap. iii. 12-15, in a very
special manner, derived the misery of the people from their bad rulers.
What is now more rational, therefore, than that he should connect the
salvation and prosperity likewise with the person of a Divine Ruler?
comp. chap. i. 26. In the adjoining prophecies of Isaiah, especially in
chaps. vii., ix., and xi., the person of the Messiah likewise forms the
centre of the proclamation of salvation; so that, _a priori_, a mention
of it must be expected here. To the same result we are led by the
analogy of Micah; comp. Vol. i. p. 443-45, 449. _Farther_--The
representation of the Messiah, under the image of a sprout or shoot, is
very common in Scripture; comp. chap. xi. 1-10; liii. 2; Rev. v. 5. But
of decisive weight are those passages in which precisely our word
[Hebrew: cmH] occurs as a designation of the Messiah. The two passages,
Jer. xxiii. 5: "Behold, the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto
David a righteous Sprout;" and xxxiii. 15: "In those days, and at that
time, shall I cause the Sprout of righteousness to grow up unto David,"
may at once and plainly be considered as an _interpretation_ of the
passage before us, and as a commentary upon it; and that so much the
more that there, as well as here, all salvation is connected with this
Sprout of Jehovah; comp. Jer. xxiii. 6: "In His days Judah [Pg 14]
shall be saved, and Israel shall dwell safely, and this is His name
whereby he shall be called: The Lord our righteousness." The two other
passages, Zech. iii. 8: "Behold, I bring my servant _Zemach_," and vi.
12: "Behold, a man whose name is _Zemach_" are of so much the greater
consequence that in them _Zemach_ (_i.e._, Sprout) occurs as a kind of
_nomen proprium_, the sense of which is supposed as being known from
former prophecies to which the Prophet all but expressly refers; or as
_Vitringa_ remarks on these passages: "That man who, in the oracles of
the preceding Prophets (Is. and Jer.) bears the name of 'Sprout.'" Of
no less consequence, _finally_, is the parallel passage, chap. xxviii.
5: "In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of glory, and
for a diadem of beauty unto the residue of His people." The words
[Hebrew: cbi] and [Hebrew: tpart] there meet us again. The same is
there ascribed to the Lord which is here attributed to the Sprout of
the Lord. That can be readily accounted for, only if the Sprout of the
Lord be the Messiah. For the Messiah appears everywhere as the channel
through which the Lord imparts to His Church all the fulness of His
blessings, as the Immanuel by whom the promise given at the very
threshold of the Old Testament: "I dwell in the midst of them," is most
perfectly realized. "This is the name whereby He shall be called: The
Lord our righteousness," says Jeremiah, in the passage quoted.--The
"Sprout of the Lord" may designate either him whom the Lord causes to
sprout, or him who has sprouted forth from the Lord, _i.e._, the Son of
God. Against the latter interpretation it is objected by _Hoffmann_
(_Weissagung und Erfuellung._ Th. 1, S. 214): "[Hebrew: cmH] is an
intransitive verb, so that [Hebrew: cmH] may be as well connected with
a noun which says, who causes to sprout forth, as with one which says,
whence the thing sprouts forth. Now it is quite obvious that, in the
passage before us, the former case applies, and not the latter,
inasmuch as one cannot say that something, or even some one, sprouts
forth from Jehovah; it is only with a thing, not with a person, that
[Hebrew: cmH] can be connected." But it is impossible to admit that
this objection is well founded. The person may very well be conceived
of as the soil from which the sprout goes forth. Yet we must, indeed,
acknowledge that the Messiah is nowhere called a Sprout of David. But
what decides in favour of the first view are the [Pg 15] parallel
passages. In Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15, the Lord raises up to David a
righteous Sprout, and causes Him to grow up unto David. Hence here,
too, the Sprout will in that sense only be the Lord's, that he does not
sprout forth out of Him, but through Him. In Zech. iii. 8 the Lord
brings his servant _Zemach_; in Ps. cxxxii. 17, it is said: "There I
cause a horn to sprout to David," and already in the fundamental
passage, 2 Sam. xxiii. 5, which contains the first germ of our passage,
David says: "For all my salvation and all my pleasure should He not
make it to _sprout_ forth."--As the words "Sprout of the Lord" denote
the heavenly origin of the Redeemer, so do the words [Hebrew: pri harC]
the earthly one, the soil from which the Lord causes the Saviour to
sprout up. These words are, by _Vitringa_ and others, translated: "the
fruit of the earth," but the correct translation is "the fruit of the
_land_." The passages, Num. xiii. 26: "And shewed them the fruit of the
land;" and Deut. i. 25: "And they took in their hands of the fruit of
the land, and brought it unto us, and brought us word again, and said,
good is the land which the Lord our God doth give us,"--these two
passages are, besides that under consideration, the only ones in which
the phrase [Hebrew: pri harC] occurs; and there is here, no doubt, an
allusion to them. The excellent natural fruit of ancient times is a
type of the spiritual fruit. To the same result--that [Hebrew: harC]
designates the definite land, that land which, in the preceding verses,
in the description of the prevailing conniption, and of the divine
judgments, was always spoken of,--to this result we are led by the fact
also, that everywhere in the Old Testament where the contrariety of the
divine and human origin of the Messiah is mentioned, the human origin
is more distinctly qualified and limited. This is especially the case
in those passages which, being dependent upon that before us, maybe
considered as a commentary upon it; in Jer. xxiii. 5, xxxiii. 15, where
the Lord raises a Sprout unto _David_, and Zech. vi. 12, where the man
whose name is _Zemach_ (Sprout) grows up out of its soil; comp. Heb.
vii. 14, where, in allusion to the Old Testament passages of the
Sprout--the verb [Greek: anatellein] is commonly used of the sprouting
forth of the plants (see _Bleek_ on this passage)--it is said: [Greek:
ex Iouda anatetalken ho Kurios hemon], _Bengel_: _ut germen justitiae_;
farther, Mic. v. 1 (2), where the eternal existence of the Messiah, [Pg
16] and His birth in Bethlehem are contrasted with one another; Is. ix.
5, (6), where the words: "Unto _us_ a child is born, unto _us_ a son is
given," are contrasted with the various designations of the Messiah,
according to His divine majesty. This qualification and limitation
which everywhere takes place, have their ground in the circumstance
that the Messiah is constantly represented to the covenant-people as
their property; and that He, indeed, was, inasmuch as salvation went
out from Jews (John iv. 22), and was destined for the Jews, into whose
communion the Gentiles were to be received; comp. my Commentary on
Revel. vii. 4. "The Sprout of the Lord," "the fruit of the land," is
accordingly He whom the Lord shall make to sprout forth from Israel.
The Sprout of the Lord, the fruit of the land is to become to the
escaped of Israel for _beauty_ and _glory_, for _exaltation_ and
_ornament_. The passages to be compared are 2 Sam. i. 19, where Saul
and Jonathan are called [Hebrew: cbi iwral]; _farther_, Is. xxviii. 5:
"In that day shall the Lord of hosts be for a crown of beauty, and for
a diadem of ornament unto the residue of His people," where the words
[Hebrew: cbi] and [Hebrew: tpart] are likewise used; _finally_, chap.
xxiv. 16, where, in reference to the Messianic time, it is said: "From
the uttermost part of the earth do we hear songs of praise: beauty (
[Hebrew: cbi]) to the righteous." By the appearance of Christ, the
covenant-people, hitherto despised, were placed in the centre of the
world's history; by it the Lord took away the rebuke of His people from
off all the earth, chap. xxv. 8. There is evidently in these words a
reference to the preceding threatening of punishment, especially to
chap. iii. 18: "In that day the Lord will take away the ornament," &c.:
But _Drechsler_ is wrong in fixing and expressing this reference thus:
"Instead of farther running after strange things, Israel will find its
glory and ornament in Him who is the long promised seed of Abrahamitic
descent." For it is not the position which Israel takes that is spoken
of, but that which is granted to them. The antithesis is between the
false glory which God takes away, and the true glory which He gives.
The Lord cannot, by any possibility, for any length of time, appear
merely _taking away_; He takes those seeming blessings, only in order
to be able to give the true ones. Every taking away is a prophecy of
giving.--"_To the escaped of Israel_," who, according to the idea of a
people of God, and according to [Pg 17] the promise of the Law (comp.
Deut. xxx. 1, ff.) can never be wanting, as little as it is possible
that the salvation should be partaken of by the whole _mass_ of the
people; sifting judgments must necessarily go before and along with it.
True prophetism everywhere knows of salvation for a remnant only. On
[Hebrew: pliTh], which does not mean "deliverance," so that the
abstract would thus here stand for the concrete, but "that which has
escaped," comp. remarks on Joel iii. 5, Vol. 1, p. 338.

All which now remains is to examine those explanations of this verse
which differ from the Messianic interpretation. 1. Following the
interpretation of _Grotius_ and others, _Gesenius_, in his Commentary,
understands by the Sprout of the Lord the new growth of the people
after their various defeats. His explanation is: "Then the sprout of
Jehovah will be splendid and glorious, and the fruit of the land
excellent and beautiful for the escaped of Israel." _Fruit of the land_
he takes in its literal sense, and understands it to mean the product
of the land. The same view is held by _Knobel_: "_He becomes for beauty
and glory_, _i.e._, the people, having reformed, prosper and form a
splendid, glorious state." And _Maurer_ in his Dictionary says: "The
Sprout of Jehovah seems to be the morally improved remnant, the new,
sanctified increase of the people." But in opposition to such a view
there is, _first_, the circumstance, that according to it the [Hebrew:
l] before [Hebrew: lcbi] and [Hebrew: lkbvr] must be understood
differently from what it is in [Hebrew: lgavN], and [Hebrew: ltpart]
which immediately follow and exactly correspond with them. There are,
_secondly_, the parallel passages chap. xxviii. 5, xxiv. 16, according
to which [Hebrew: cbi] "beauty" is conferred upon the escaped, but they
themselves do not become beauty. _Finally_--It is always most natural
to suppose that [Hebrew: cmH ihvh] and [Hebrew: pri harC] correspond
with one another, and denote the same subject which is here described
after his various aspects only. For in the same manner as [Hebrew: cmH]
and [Hebrew: pri] go hand in hand, both being taken from the territory
of botany, so [Hebrew: ihvh] and [Hebrew: harC] also stand in a
contrast which is not to be mistaken. 2. _Hitzig_, _Ewald_, _Meier_,
and others not only refer "the fruit of the land," but also the "Sprout
of Jehovah" to that which Jehovah makes to sprout forth.[2] It is true
that, in the prophetic [Pg 18] announcements, among the blessings of
the future the rich produce of the land is also mentioned (comp. chap.
xxx. 23-25), and the same is very expressly done in the Law also; but
in not a single one of these passages does the strange expression
occur, that this fruitfulness should serve to the escaped for beauty
and glory, for exaltation and ornament, or any other that bears the
slightest resemblance to it. Against this explanation there is, _in
addition_, the circumstance that the barrenness of the country is not
at all pointed out in the preceding context. _Finally_--When we
understand this expression as referring to the Messiah, this verse,
standing as it does at the head of the proclamation of salvation,
contains the fundamental thought; and in what follows we obtain the
expansion. In the verse before us we are told that in Christ the people
attain to glory,--and, in those which follow, how this glory is
manifested in them. But according to this view, every internal
connexion of the verse before us with what follows is entirely
destroyed. 3. According to _Hendewerk_, by the "Sprout of the Lord,"
"the collective person of the ruling portion in the state during the
Messianic happy time," is designated. This opinion is the beginning of
a return to the Messianic interpretation. But then only could that
ideal person be here referred to, if elsewhere in Isaiah too it would
come out strongly and decidedly. As this, however, is not the case; as,
on the contrary, the Messiah everywhere in Isaiah meets us in shining
clearness, it would be arbitrary to give up the _person_ in favour of a
_personification_. 4. _Umbreit_ acknowledges that, in the case of
[Hebrew: cmH ihvh], the Messianic interpretation is the only correct
one. "The two subsequent prophecies in chap. ix. and xi.," he says,
"are to be considered as a commentary on our short text." But it is
characteristic of his compromising manner that by "the fruit of the
land" he understands "the consequences of the dominion of the Messiah
for the land, the fruits which, in consequence of his appearing, the
consecrated soil brings forth,"--thus plainly overlooking the clear [Pg
19] contrast between the Sprout of the Lord, and the fruit of the land,
by which evidently the same thing is designated from different aspects.

Ver. 3. The Prophet now begins to show, more in detail, in how far the
Sprout of the Lord and the fruit of the land would serve for the honour
and glory of the Church. The words: "He that was left in Zion and was
spared in Jerusalem," take up the idea suggested by the "escaped of
Israel" in ver. 2. The double designation is intended to direct
attention to the thought that the remnant, and the remnant only, are
called to a participation in the glory. _Zion_ and _Jerusalem_, as the
centre of the covenant-people, here represent the whole; this is
evident from the circumstance that at the close of ver. 2, which is
here resumed, the escaped of _Israel_ were spoken of Ever since the
sanctuary and the royal palace were founded at Zion, it was in a
spiritual point of view, the residence of all Israel, who even
personally met there at the high festivals.--Whoever is left in Zion
"_shall be called holy_." The fundamental notion of holiness is that of
separation. God is holy, inasmuch as He is separated from all that is
created and finite, and is elevated above all that is finite; comp. my
Commentary on Rev. iv. 8. _Believers_ are holy, because they are
separated from the world as regards their moral existence and their
destiny. Here only the latter aspect is considered. Holy in a moral
sense they were already, inasmuch as it is this which forms the
condition of their being spared in the divine judgments. They became
holy because they are partakers of the beauty, of the exaltation, and
ornament which are to be bestowed upon the escaped by the Sprout of the
Lord. The circumstance that they have been installed into the dignity
of the saints of God implies that, when the Spirit of the Lord has
appeared, the world's power has no longer any dominion over them, but
that, on the contrary, they shall judge the world. In like manner we
read in Exod. xix. 6, in the description of the _reward_ for
faithfulness: "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and a holy
nation;" comp. ver. 5: "And now if you will obey my voice and keep my
covenant, ye shall be a property unto me out of all people." In
reference to the exalted dignity and glory, holiness occurs in Deut.
vii. 6: "For thou art an holy people unto the Lord thy God; the Lord
thy God hath chosen thee to be a peculiar people unto himself out of
all the people that are upon [Pg 20] the face of the earth." When the
company of Korah said: "All the congregation, they are holy" (Numb.
xvi. 3), they had in view, not the moral holiness but the dignity--a
circumstance which is quite obvious from words added: "And in the midst
of them is the Lord." And so Moses likewise speaks of the dignity in
Numb. xvi. 7: "Whom the Lord shall choose, he is the holy one." In Rom.
i. 7; Heb. iii. 1, holiness is declared to consist in being loved,
called, and chosen by God.--As regards the fulfilment of this promise,
it has its _horas_ and _moras_. It began with the first appearance of
Christ, by which the position of the true Israel to the world was
substantially and fundamentally changed. It was not without meaning
that, as early as in the apostolic times, the "Saints" was a kind of
_nomen proprium_ of believers, comp. Acts ix. 13, 32. We are even now
the sons of God, and hence even already installed into an important
portion of the inheritance of holiness; but it has not yet appeared
what we shall be, 1 John iii. 2. But the beginning, and the
continuation pervading all ages, viz., God's dealings throughout the
whole of history, whereby he ever anew lifts up His Church from the
dust of lowliness, afford to us the guarantee for the completion,
which is, with graphic vividness, described in the last two chapters
of Revelation.--"_To be called_" is more than merely "to be;" it
indicates that the _being_ is so marked as to procure for itself
acknowledgment.--The words: "_Every one that is written to life in
Jerusalem_" anew point out that judgment will go before, and by the
side of grace. The meaning of [Hebrew: HiiM] is, according to the
fundamental passage in Ps. lxix. 29, "not living ones" (_Hoffmann_,
_Weiss._ i. S. 208), but "life." In Revelation, too, the book of life,
and not the book of the living ones, is spoken of "To be written to
life" is equivalent to being ordained to life, Acts xiii. 48; comp. my
Comment. on Ps. lxix. 29; Rev. iii. 5. Life is not naked life,--a
miserable life is, according to the view of Scripture, not to be called
a life, but is a form of death only--but life in the full enjoyment of
the favour of God; comp. my Comment. on Ps. xvi. 11, xxx. 6, xxxvi. 10;
xlii. 9; lxiii. 4. The Chaldean thus paraphrases it: "All they that are
written to eternal life shall see the consolation of Jerusalem, _i.e._
the Messiah." Comp. Dan. xii. 1; Rev. iii. 5, xiii. 8, xx. 15, xxii.
19; Phil. iv. 3; Luke x. 20. The bodily death of believers cannot
exclude them from a participation in being written to [Pg 21] life;
for, being a mere transition to life, it can, in truth, not be called a
death. Here, too, the word of Christ applies: "The maid is not dead but
sleepeth," Matt. ix. 24. The fact that there is no contradiction
between bodily death and life, _i.e._ a participation in the blessings
of the Kingdom of Christ, is pointed out by Isaiah himself in chap.
xxvi. 19: "Thy dead men shall _live_, my dead bodies shall arise, for a
dew of light is thy dew."

Ver. 4. The Prophet points out that before the Church is raised to the
dignity of the saints of God, a thorough change of its moral
conditions, an energetic expunging of the sin now prevailing in her,
must take place, "_When the Lord has washed away the filth of the
daughters of Zion._" The "daughters of Zion" are none other than those
whose haughtiness, luxury, and wantonness were described in chap. iii.
16 ff., and to whom the deepest abasement was then threatened. The
filth, under the image of which sin is here represented (comp. Prov.
xxx. 12); "A generation pure in their own eyes, and yet is not washed
from their filthiness," forms the contrast to the splendid attire which
is there spoken of Behind this splendid attire the filthiness is
concealed. The filth is not washed away (1 Cor. vi. 11; Eph. v. 26)
from the daughters of Jerusalem,--for, inasmuch as this washing away is
accomplished by means of the spirit of destruction, it could not apply
to them--but from Jerusalem; comp. the phrase, "from the midst
thereof," which immediately follows. Jerusalem, the city of the Lord,
in which no unclean person, and no unclean thing are permitted to
dwell, is cleansed from the filth with which its unworthy daughters
contaminate it. "_And shall remove the blood of Jerusalem._" The "blood
of Jerusalem" is the blood which attaches to Jerusalem, which has been
shed in it. The connection of the punishment of the sins of avarice on
the part of the rulers, in chap. iii. 13-15, with the punishment of the
luxury and ostentation on the part of the women, is illustrative of the
relation of filth and blood to each other. Blood is shed in order to
furnish pride and vanity with the means of their gratification. The
avarice of the rulers, and their shedding of blood, are put together in
Ezek. xxii. 13; comp. ver. 27: "Her princes are in the midst thereof
like wolves ravening the prey, shedding blood, destroying souls, to get
dishonest gain." Bloodguiltiness those too incur who deprive the poor
of the necessary means of support, Mic. iii. 2, 3. The comparison of
[Pg 22] chap. i. 15: "Your hands are full of blood," and of ver. 21:
"But now murderers," compared with vers. 17, 23, 26, shews that we have
to think especially of unjust judges and avaricious rulers. Yet, there
is no reason for limiting ourselves to the nobles and rulers _alone_;
comp. Ezek. xxii. 29: "The people of the land use oppression, and
boldly practice robbery, and vex the poor and needy, and oppress the
stranger." Where sins so gross are still prevalent, where the law of
the Lord is so wantonly broken, an installation into the dignity of
the saints of God is out of the question. For that, it is absolutely
essential that exertions be made that the high destination of the
people: "Ye shall be holy for I am holy," become a truth; that in
a moral point of view it show itself as truly separated from the
world,--and that is something so infinitely great, that men are utterly
unable for it, that it can proceed from God only, with whom nothing is
impossible.--The last words of the verse are commonly explained: "by
the spirit of _judgment_, and by the spirit of destruction or burning."
In that case the putting away of the filth and blood by the judging
activity of the Lord, by the destruction of sin, would be spoken of
[Hebrew: mwpT], however, may also be taken in the sense of "right:" by
the spirit of right which lays hold of, and changes the well disposed
(comp. Mic. iii. 8: "But I am full of power by the Spirit of the Lord,
and of _right_ and might"), and by the spirit of destruction which
consumes the disobedient. In favour of the latter view are the parallel
passages; above all, chap. xxviii. 6, where it is said of the Messianic
time, "In that day the Lord will become, &c.," "And for a spirit of
right to him that sitteth for right;" farther, chap. i. 27, 28: "Zion
shall be redeemed by right, and her converts by righteousness. But the
transgressors and sinners are destroyed together, and they that forsake
the Lord are consumed." Comp. Matt. iii. 11: [Greek autos humas
baptisei en pneumati hagio kai puri], where likewise a double washing,
that of grace and that of wrath, is spoken of. In chap. xxxii. 15:
"Until the Spirit be poured out upon us from on high," Isaiah likewise
points to the regeneration which, in the Messianic time, will be
accomplished by the Spirit; and it is, according to the whole _usus
loquendi_ of the Old Testament, most natural to think of the Spirit
transforming from within The Spirit of God scarcely occurs elsewhere in
the Old Testament as the executor of God's judgments; so that the
supposition is [Pg 23] very natural that the spirit of destruction has
been brought in by the spirit of right only.--The word [Hebrew: ber]
is, by some, understood as "burning," by others, as "destruction." We
ourselves decide in favour of the latter signification, which occurs
also in chap. iv. 13, for this reason, that it is in that signification
that [Hebrew: ber] is, in Deuteronomy, used as the _terminus technicus_
of the extirpation of the wicked. If the Church does not comply with
the command: [Greek: exareite ton poneron ex humon auton], 1 Cor. v.
13; Deut. xiii. 6 (5), God himself will enforce His authority by His
Spirit, who carries out the judgments of the avenging God, just as He
carries out every influence of the Creator upon the created. On the
"Spirit of the Lord," comp. my remarks on Rev. i. 4.

Ver. 5. The image is here taken from the journey of Israel through the
wilderness. During that journey, they were guided and protected by a
symbol of God's presence, which by day presented itself as smoke, and
by night assumed the form of flaming fire. By this symbol the God of
Israel was designated as the jealous God, as the living, personal
energy, energetic in His love for His people, energetic in wrath
against His and their enemies. Comp. especially Exod. xiii. 21: "And
the Lord went before them by day in a pillar of a cloud to lead them on
the way, and by night in a pillar of fire to give them light;" and xl.
38: "For a cloud was upon the tabernacle by day, and fire was on it by
night;" comp. Numb. ix. 15, 16. The same phenomenon is to be repeated
in future, although in a different form. In a manner the most real, the
Lord will manifest himself as the living energy of His Church, dwelling
in the midst of her, and ruling over her as a protector, so that the
world's power can no longer injure her. That such will be done in and
by His _Sprout_, in Christ, appears from the relation of the verse
under consideration to ver. 2; for the verse before us still belongs to
the expansion of the proposition placed at the head of the whole: "The
_Sprout_ of the Lord becomes for beauty and glory, and the fruit of the
land for exaltation and ornament to the escaped of Israel." Christ in
His person and Spirit is the true Shechinah, the true indwelling of God
in His Church. This indwelling is, even in the Law, designated as the
highest privilege of the covenant-people; its being raised to a higher
power is therefore to the Prophet the highest blessing of the future,
the source from which all other blessings flow. That which the heathen
in vain longed [Pg 24] for and imagined; that which Israel hitherto
possessed only very imperfectly, a _praesens numen_, whereby the
antithesis of heaven and earth is done away with, and earth is
glorified into a heaven;--that, the purified Church of the Lord
possesses in the most perfect and real manner, and in it, absolute
security against the world, a decided victory over it. The words:
"_Over her assemblies_," show that the whole life of the people shall
then bear a religious character, and shall be a continual service of
God, comp. Acts ii. 42, where, as a type of the completion of the
Church, it is said: "And they continued stedfastly in the Apostles'
doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, and in prayers."
[Hebrew: mqra] is only the name for that which is called, "the
assembly," and stands in Levit. xxiii. and Is. i. 13 of the religious
assemblies which were held on the holy days, comp. my pamphlet: _Ueber
den Tag des Herrn S_. 32. The same phenomenon is, according to its
appearance by day, designated, at the same time, as _clouds_ and
_smoke_. Smoke is never "vapour, vapoury clouds" (_Knobel_); and here
the smoke by day corresponds with the _flaming fire_ by night. If then
the smoke can be considered as a product of the fire only (comp. my
remarks on Rev. xv. 8), the cloud cannot come into consideration
according to its matter, but according to its form only. The smoke
assumes the form of a cloud which affords protection from the burning
sun of tribulations, as once, in the burning desert, from the scorching
heat of the natural sun, comp. Num. x. 34: "And the cloud of the Lord
was upon them;" Ps. cv. 39: "He spread a cloud for a covering;" Is.
xxv. 5. The cloud which thus affords protection to the Church turns a
threatening face towards her enemies. Rev. xv. 8.--The words: "_For
above all glory is a covering_," point to the ground of the protecting,
gracious presence of God in the Church. Several interpreters explain
the sense thus: "As we cover and preserve precious things more
carefully, in order that they may not be injured, so does God in His
grace surround His Church, which has been adorned with glorious
virtues, and raised to the high dignity of the saints of God, and
protects her from every danger." Others understand by [Hebrew: kl-kbvd]
the whole glory mentioned in the preceding context; but in that case we
should expect the article. One may also supply the limitation: For, _in
the Kingdom of God_, there is a covering over all glory.

[Pg 25]

Ver. 6. God--this is the same sense--protects His Church from every
danger and calamity. By His gracious presence in His Sprout, He affords
to them that protection which a hut does from sun, storms, and rain.
Luther says: "In this passage, accordingly, Christ is held up to us as
He who in all tribulations, bodily as well as spiritual, is our
protection." There is an allusion to the 21st verse of Ps. xxxi. (which
was written by David): "Thou hidest them in the secret of thy
countenance from the conspiracy of every one; thou keepest them
secretly in a pavilion from the strife of tongues." The pavilion in
this Psalm is a spiritual one, viz., God's grace and protection. That
word of David shall be gloriously fulfilled when the Sprout of the Lord
shall appear.--The "_Sun_" comes into consideration in its scorching
quality; and the "_heat_" is in Scripture the image of temptations,
sufferings, and trials; comp. remarks on Rev. viii. 12, xvi. 8; Song of
Sol. i. 6; Ps. cxxi. 6; Matt. xiii. 6, compared with v. 21; Is. xlix.
10, xxv. 4; and, according to the last passage, we must especially have
in view the enmity and assaults of the world's power. The "_rain_"
appears as an image of tribulation in the Song of Sol. ii. 11; Is. xxv.
4: "The spirit of the terrible ones (the passions of the kings of the
world, and conquerors) is like a violent shower against the wall;"
xxxii. 2.--A comparison of the Messianic prophecy in chap ii. with that
which we have now considered shows very clearly how necessary it is to
regard the single Messianic prophecies as fragments only, supplementing
one another, inasmuch as commonly a few aspects only were presented to
the spiritual eye of the Prophet. Just as the description in chap. ii.
receives an important supplement from the passage now considered,
inasmuch as the latter contains the mention of the personal Messiah, so
it, again, supplements that before us by announcing the participation
by the Gentiles in the blessings of the Messianic Kingdom.



[Footnote 1: Light is the image of salvation; to walk in the light is
to enjoy a participation in it. Israel is not wantonly to wander away
from the path of light which the Lord has opened up to them, into the
dark desolation of misery. In the words [Hebrew: lkv vnlkh] there is a
clear reference to [Hebrew: lkv vnelh] of the Gentile nations in ver.
3. If the Gentiles apply with such zeal for a participation in the
blessings of the Kingdom of God, how disgraceful would it be if you,
the people of the covenant, the children of the Kingdom, should lose
your glorious possession by your ungodly walk. In vers. 6-11 the
Prophet states the grounds of his admonition to the people to walk in
the light of the Lord which he had expressed in the preceding verse.
This admonition implies that there existed a danger of losing a
participation in the light; and it is this danger which the Prophet
here more particularly details. It is not without reason, so the words
may be paraphrased, that I say: "Walk ye in the light of the Lord," for
at present the Lord has _forsaken_ the people on account of their sins,
and with that, a participation in His light is incompatible. By being
full of heathenish superstition, of false confidence in earthly things,
yea, even of the most disgraceful that can be imagined for Israel,
viz., gross idolatry, they rather become more and more ripe for the
divine judgment which will break in irresistibly upon them.]

[Footnote 2: So _Gesenius_ also in the _Thesaurus_: "The whole earth
shall be holy and shall more beautifully bloom and be adorned with
plenty of fruits and corn for the benefit of those who have escaped
from those calamities." _Gesenius'_ wavering clearly shows how little
satisfaction the non-Messianic explanation affords to its own abettors.
Besides the explanations of [Hebrew: cmH ihvh] by "the new growth of
the people," and "the rich produce of the country," he advances still a
third one, viz., "a divinely favoured ruler,"--an explanation which has
even the grammar against it, as we are at liberty to translate only:
"The Sprout of the Lord;" and likewise the analogy of [Hebrew: pri
harC], according to which the Genitive can have a reference to the
_origin_ only.]



[Pg 26]




                        THE PROPHECY, CHAP. VII.
                               IMMANUEL.


A crisis of the most important nature in the history of Israel is
formed by the Syrico-Ephraemitic war, by the expedition of the allied
kings, Rezin of Damascus, and Pekah of Samaria, which had been already
prepared under the reign of Jotham, and which broke out in the first
years of Ahaz. It was in consequence of this war that Asshur came
into the land. The inroad of the Assyrian King, Pul, under Menahem
of Israel, had been transitory only, comp. Vol. 1. p. 165. It was
only with the invasion under Ahaz that the tendency of Asshur began
of making lasting conquests on the other side of the Euphrates,
which could not fail to bring about a collision with the Egyptian
power. The succeeding powers in Asia and Europe followed Asshur's
steps. "Hitherto,"--so says _Caspari_, in his pamphlet on the
Syrico-Ephraemitic war, S. 17 ff.--"hitherto Israel had to do with the
small neighbouring nations only,--now, in punishment of their sins,
oppressed by them; then, in reward of their obedience, oppressing and
ruling over them. And the Syrico-Ephraemitic war itself had been a link
only in the chain of these attacks--its last link. Israel, having
arrived at the point of being hardened, and having entered upon a path
in accordance with this tendency, required another more severe
corrective--its being crushed by the mighty world's power. The
appearance of these mighty powers, just at the period when Israel
entered upon their hardening, is most providential.--The beginning of
the end of the kingdom of the ten tribes had come, and the breaking up
of its independent political existence had commenced. As enmity to
Judah had given its origin to the kingdom of the ten tribes, so also
did it bring about its destruction; born out of it, it died of it. It
owed its existence to the incipient enmity; when the latter was
accomplished (Isa. vii. 6,) it caused its death.--The Assyrians came to
the help of Judah, but charged a high price for their help, viz.,
Judah's submission and fealty. Thirty heavy years of servitude, and, to
a great part, of [Pg 27] fears of the worst, 2 Kings xvi. 18; Is.
xxxiii. 18 (?); xxxvii. 3, followed for this kingdom also; and when, at
the close of this period, it freed itself from them after the fashion
of the kingdom of Israel, it shared nearly the same fate, 2 Kings
xviii. 31 ff. It was only to the mercy of the Lord, who looked
graciously upon the feeble beginnings of conversion, that it owed its
deliverance. The Assyrian power, which had put an end to the kingdoms
of Damascus and Israel, and which was the first power that appeared on
the stage of history and came into conflict with the people of God,
became a significant sign of the final fate of the world's power in its
attacks upon the Kingdom of God. But, as a prelude to the long series
of visitations which it had to endure from the world's power in its
different phases, Judah was even now led to the very brink of
destruction; there came a period, the 14th year of Hezekiah, when
almost nothing more of it was to be seen by the outward eye than its
metropolis exposed to the utmost danger."

A remarkable proof of the fact that the spirit which filled the
prophets was a higher one than their own, is the fact that Isaiah
recognized so distinctly and clearly the importance of the decisive
moment.

In close connection with the great crisis at which the history of the
people of God had arrived, stands the richer display of the Messianic
announcement which begins with the chapter before us. Messiah is
henceforth represented to Judah as an Immanuel against the world's
powers, as the surety for its deliverance from the severe oppressions
hanging over it, as He who at last, at His appearance, would conquer
the world, and lay it at the feet of the people of God.

After these general introductory remarks, let us turn more particularly
to the contents of the chapter before us. It was told to the house of
David: "Aram is encamped in Ephraim." The position of Ahaz was, humanly
considered, desperate. His enemies were far superior to him, and he
could scarcely hope for help from heaven, for he had an evil
conscience. The idea of seeking help from Asshur was natural. Isaiah
received a commission to oppose this idea before it became a firm
resolution. In doing so he, by no means, occupies the position of an
ingenious politician. On the contrary, the whole commission is [Pg 28]
forced upon him. It can scarcely be doubted that the Assyrians would
have penetrated to Western Asia, even if Ahaz had not called them to
his assistance. The expedition of the Syrians and Ephraimites with the
view of making conquests, could not but turn their attention to that
quarter. As the instruments of the judgments upon Damascus and Samaria,
which Isaiah announced as impending under any circumstances, we can
surely think of none but Asshur. But if once they came into these
regions, in order to chastise the haughtiness of the Syrians and
Ephraimites, who would set up as a new conquering power, then was Judah
too threatened by them. _In a political point of view it did not make
any great difference whether Ahaz sought help from the Assyrians, or
not_; on the contrary, the king of Asshur could not but be more
favourably disposed towards him for so doing. _Isaiah, throughout,
rather occupies the position of the man of God._ The kings of the
people of God were, in general, not prevented from forming alliances;
but such alliances must belong to the category of permitted human
resources. Such, however, was not the case here. Asshur was a
conquering power, altogether selfish. His help had to be purchased with
dependance, and with the danger of entire destruction; to stay upon him
was to stay upon their destroyer, Is. x. 20. Such an alliance was a _de
facto_ denial of the God of Israel, an insult to His omnipotence and
grace. If Ahaz had obeyed Him; if he had limited himself to the use of
the human means granted to him by the Lord without trusting in them,
and had placed all his confidence in the Lord, He would have delivered
him in the same manner as He afterwards delivered Hezekiah, in the
first instance from Aram and Ephraim, and then from Asshur also. But
although Ahaz did not follow the prophet, his mission was by no means
in vain. Even before the mission, this result lay open before the Lord
who sent him. The great point was to establish, before the first
conflict of Israel with the world's power, thus much, that this
conflict had been brought about by the sin of the house of David, and
that hence it did not afford any cause for doubting the omnipotence and
mercy of the Lord whose help had been offered, but rejected.

The Prophet seeks out the king at a place to which he had been driven
by his despairing disquietude which was clinging convulsively to human
resources. He endeavours, first, to exert [Pg 29] an influence upon him
by taking with him his son, whose symbolical name, containing a
prophecy of the future destinies of the people, indicated that the
king's fear of a total destruction of the State was without foundation.
After the king has thus been prepared, he endeavours to make a deeper
impression upon him by the announcement, distinct and referring to the
present case, that the enemies should not only entirely fail in their
intention of conquering and dividing between themselves the kingdom of
Judah; but that the kingdom of Ephraim was itself hastening towards
that destruction which it was preparing for its brethren, and that
after sixty-five years it should altogether lose its national
independence and existence, ver. 1-9. But Ahaz makes no reply; and his
whole deportment shows that he does not follow the Prophet's
exhortation to "take heed and be quiet," and that the words: "If ye do
not believe, ye shall not be established," with which the Prophet
closes his address, have not made any impression upon him. In order
that the greatness of the king's hardness of heart may become manifest,
the Prophet offers, in the commission of the Lord, to confirm the
certainty of his statement by a miraculous sign, which the king himself
is called upon to fix, without any restriction, in order that any
suspicion of imposition may be removed. "But Ahaz, the unbeliever, is
afraid of heavenly communications, has already chosen his help, wishes
that every thing should go on in an easy human manner, and refuses the
Lord's offer in a polite turn which even refers to the Law. A sign is
then forced upon him, because as the king of Judah, he must see and
hear for all Judah that the Lord is faithful and good."[1] The Prophet,
in ver. 14, points to the birth of the Saviour by a Virgin. How then
was it possible that in the present collision that people should be
destroyed, among whom, according to former promises. He was to be born;
that that family should be extinguished from which he was to be
descended? The name "Immanuel," by which the future Saviour is
designated as "He in whom the Lord is, in the truest manner, to be with
His people," is a guarantee for His help in the present distress also.
The Prophet then states the time in which the land shall be entirely
delivered from its present enemies. The contemporaries, as the
representative of whom [Pg 30] the child appears (the Prophet, in the
energy of his faith, has transferred the birth of this child from the
future to the present), shall, after the short space of about two
years, again obtain the full enjoyment of the products of the land,
ver. 15. For, before this period has elapsed, destruction will fall
upon the hostile kings in their own land, ver. 16. The danger,
however--and this is pointed out in ver. 17-25--will come from just
that quarter from which Ahaz expects help, viz., from Asshur. But the
security for deliverance from this danger also--the conqueror of the
world's power which was soon to begin its course in Asshur, is none
other than Immanuel, whom the Prophet, in the beginning of the
humiliation of the people of God, makes, so to say, to become man, in
order that, during the impending deep humiliation of the people of God,
He may accompany it in its history during all the stages of its
existence, until He should really become man. He is, however in this
discourse, not yet pointed out as the deliverer from Asshur, and the
world's power represented by him. The darkness of the misery to be
inflicted by Asshur should not, and could not, in the meantime, be
cleared up for Ahaz; the picture must end in night. But in the
following discourse, chap. viii. 1, ix. 6 (7), which serves as a
necessary supplement to the one before us, the Saviour is depicted
before the eyes of those despairing in the sight of Asshur; and the
two-fold repetition of His name Immanuel, in chap. viii. 8, 10, serves
to show that the two discourses are intimately connected, and form one
whole.

Ahaz persevered in his unbelief, according to 2 Kings xvi. 7, 8. He
sent messengers with large presents to Tiglath-pileser, King of
Assyria, saying: "I am _thy servant_ and _thy son_ (a word as ominous
as that: 'We have no king but Caesar,'in John xix. 35); come up and
save me out of the hand of the King of Aram, and out of the hand of the
King of Israel which rise up against me." But before the asked-for help
came, king and people had to endure very severe sufferings from Aram
and Ephraim. Ahaz, after having first made preparations to secure
Jerusalem against the impending siege, sent out his armies. They met
with a twofold heavy defeat from the divided armies of the allied
kings,[2] from which he might have been spared by [Pg 31] being still,
and hoping. The hostile armies then came up to Jerusalem, and laid
siege to it. It was probably by the intelligence of the advance of
Asshur that they were induced to raise the siege. It was now confirmed
that the Prophet had been right in designating the two hostile kings as
mere tails of smoking firebrands. Damascus was taken by the King of
Ophir; the inhabitants were carried away into exile to Kir; Rezin was
slain, 2 Kings xvi. 9: the land of Israel was devastated; a portion of
its inhabitants was carried away into exile; the king was made
tributary, 2 Kings xv. 29. Exactly at the time fixed by the Prophet,
the overthrow of the two hostile kingdoms took place; but the
deliverance which, without any farther sacrifice, Ahaz would have
obtained, if he had believed the Prophet, had now to be purchased by
very heavy sacrifices; and with perfect justice it is said in 2 Chron.
xxviii. 20, 21, that the king of Asshur did not help him, but rather,
by coming unto him, distressed him. Ahaz purchased this help at the
price of his independence, and had probably to submit to very hard
claims being made upon him. (_Caspari_, S. 60.) The world's power, to
which Ahaz had offered a finger, seized, more and more, the whole hand,
and held it by a firm grasp. Under Hezekiah, faith broke through the
consequences of the sin of the family; but this interruption lasted as
long only as did the faith. In addition to that which Ahaz had, for his
unbelief, to suffer from Aram, Ephraim, and Asshur, came the rebellion
of the neighbouring nations,--of the Edomites, according to 2 Chron.
xxviii. 17, and of the Philistines, according to ver. 18.

Ver. 1. "_And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz, the son of Jotham,
the son of Uzziah, that Rezin, the king of Aram, and Pekah the son of
Remaliah, the king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem, to war against
it, and could not fight against it._"

In thus tracing back the pedigree of Ahaz to Uzziah, there is a
reference to chap. vi. 1: "In the year that King Uzziah [Pg 32] died,"
&c. These two chapters stand related to each other as prophecy and
fulfilment. It was in the year of Uzziah's death that the Prophet had
been seized with fearful forebodings; and by the divine word these
fearful forebodings had soon been raised into a clear knowledge of the
threatening judgments which were impending. Under Ahaz, the second
successor of Uzziah, this knowledge began to be realized, keeping pace
with the hardening which in Ahaz had become personified. He, the type
of the unbelieving Jewish people, did not hear and understand, did not
see and perceive; and the announcement of the Prophet served merely
to increase his hardening. Even as early as that, the germ of the
carrying away of the people, announced by the Prophet in chap. vi., was
formed.--The circumstance of the hostile kings being introduced as
_going up_ implies the spiritual elevation of Jerusalem; comp. remarks
on Ps. xlviii. 3; xlviii. 17. The city of God is unconquerable unless
her inhabitants and, above all, the anointed one of God, make, by their
unbelief, their glorious privilege of no avail. In the last words:
"_And could not fight against it_," (the singular [Hebrew: ikl] because
Rezin is the chief person, Rezin and Pekah being identical with Rezin
with Pekah, comp. Esth. iv. 16), the result of the siege is
anticipated; and this is easily accounted for by the consideration that
ver. 1 serves as an introduction to the whole account, stating, in
general terms, the circumstances which induced the Prophet to come
publicly forward. In the following verses, the share only is mentioned
which the Prophet took in the matter; and the account is closed after
he has discharged his commission. The apparent contradiction to 2 Kings
xvi. 5, according to which Jerusalem was really besieged,--a
contradiction which occurs also in that passage itself: "And they
besieged Ahaz, and could not fight"--is most simply reconciled by the
remark that a fruitless struggle can, as it were, not be called a
struggle, just as, _e. g._, in the Old Testament, such as have a name
little known are spoken of as being without a name.

Ver. 2, "_And it was told to the house of David, saying: Aram rests
upon Ephraim. Then his heart trembled, and the heart of his people,
like as the trembling of the trees of the wood before the wind._"

The representative of the house of David was, according to [Pg 33] ver.
1, Ahaz, to whom the suffix in [Hebrew: lbbv] refers. It is thereby
intimated that Ahaz does not come into consideration as an individual,
but as a representative of the whole Davidic family, of which the
members were responsible, conjunctly and severally, and which in Ahaz
denied their God, and gave themselves up to the world's power,--a deed
of the family from the consequences of which a heroic faith only, like
that of Hezekiah, could deliver, but in such a manner only that it at
once became valid again when this faith ceased, until at length in
Christ the house of David was raised to glory. Ver. 19 shows that
[Hebrew: nvH] must be taken in the signification "to let oneself down,"
"to sit down," "to encamp." The anguish of the natural man, who has not
his strength in God at the breaking in of danger, is most graphically
described.

Ver. 3. "_And the Lord said to Isaiah: Go out to meet Ahaz, thou and
Shearjashub thy son, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool, in
the highway of the fuller's field._"

Why is the Prophet to seek out the king just at this place? The answer
is given by chap. xxii. 2. "And a reservoir you make between the two
walls for the waters of the old pool: and not do ye look unto him who
makes it (viz., the impending calamity), and not do ye regard him who
fashioned it long ago." When a siege of Jerusalem was imminent, in the
lower territory, the first task was to cut off the water from the
hostile army. This measure Hezekiah, according to 2 Chron. xxxii. 3,
took against Sennacherib: "And he took counsel with his princes and his
mighty men, to stop the waters of the fountains which were without the
city, and they helped him." That might be done in faith; but he who,
like Ahaz, did not stand in the faith, sought in it, _per se_, his
safety; his despairing heart clung to such measures. The stopping of
the fountains was, in his case, on a level with seeking help from the
Assyrians. It is thus in the midst of his sin that the Prophet seeks
out the king, and recalls to his conscience: "take heed and be quiet."
But why did the Prophet take his son Shearjashub with him? It surely
cannot be without significance; for otherwise it would not have been
recorded, far less would it have been done at the express command of
the Lord. As the boy does not appear actively, the reason can only be
in the signification of the name. According to chap. viii., the Prophet
was accustomed to give to [Pg 34] his sons symbolical names which had a
relation to the destinies of the nation. They were, according to chap.
viii. 18, "for signs and for wonders in Israel." But as an
interpretation of the name, the passage chap. x. 21 is to be
considered: "The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob unto the
mighty God." The word [Hebrew: wvb] can, accordingly, be understood of
returning to the Lord, of repentance only, comp. chap. i. 27; Hos. iii.
5. But with repentance the recovery of salvation is indissolubly
connected. The reason why it is impossible that they who commit the sin
against the Holy Ghost shall never recover salvation lies solely in the
circumstance, that it is impossible that they should be renewed to
repentance. The fundamental passage, which is comprehended in the name
of the Prophet's son: "And thou returnest unto the Lord thy God.... And
the Lord thy God turneth thy captivity (_i.e._, thy misery), and hath
compassion upon thee, and returneth and gathereth thee from all the
nations" (Deut. xxx. 2, 3), emphatically points out the indissoluble
connection of the return to the Lord, and of the return of the Lord to
His people. This connection comes out so much the more clearly, when we
consider that, according to Scripture, repentance is not the work of
man but of God, and is nothing else but the beginning of the bestowal
of salvation; comp. Deut. xxx. 6: "And the Lord thy God circumciseth
thine heart, and the heart of thy seed to love the Lord thy God with
all thine heart, and with all thy soul, that thou mayest live;" Zech.
xii. 10. King and people feared entire destruction; and it was at this
that their powerful enemies aimed. Isaiah took his son with him, "as
the living proof of the preservation of the nation, even amidst the
most fearful destruction of the greater part of it." After having in
this manner endeavoured to free their minds from the extreme of fear,
he seeks to elevate them to joyful hopes, by the prophetical
announcement proper, which showed that, from this quarter, not even the
future great judgment, which would leave a portion only, was to be
feared.

Ver. 4. "_And say unto him: Take heed and be quiet; fear not, nor let
thy heart be tender for the two ends of these smoking firebrands, for
the fierce anger of Rezin and Aram, and of the son of Remaliah._"

[Pg 35]

The words "_Take heed_" point to the dangerous consequences of fear;
comp. ver. 9: "If ye do not believe, ye shall not be established." On
the words "_be quiet_," lit., make quiet, viz., thy heart and walk,
comp. chap. xxx. 15: "For thus saith the Lord: By returning and rest ye
shall be saved; in _quietness_ and confidence shall be your strength;
and ye would not." Such as he was, Ahaz could not respond to the
exhortations to be quiet. Quietness is a product of _faith_. But the
way of faith stood open to Ahaz every moment, and by his promising word
and by his example, the Prophet invited him to enter upon it. In the
words: "Fear not," &c., there is an unmistakable reference to Deut. xx.
1, ff., according to which passage the priest was, on the occasion of
hostile oppression, to speak to the people: "Let not your hearts be
tender, and be not terrified." That which, in the Law, the priest was
commanded to do, is here done by the Prophet, who was obliged so often
to step in as a substitute, when the class of the ordinary servants
fell short of the height of their calling.--The "firebrand" is the
image of the conqueror who destroys countries by the fire of war, comp.
remarks on Rev. viii. 8. The Prophet is just about to announce to the
hostile kings their impending overthrow; for this reason, he calls them
_ends_ of firebrands, which no longer blaze, but only glimmer. He calls
them thus because he considers them with the eye of _faith_; to the
bodily eye a bright flame still presented itself, as the last words:
"For the fierce anger," &c., and vers. 5 and 6 show. _Chrysostom_
remarks: "He calls these kings 'firebrands,'to indicate at the same
time their violence, and that they are to be easily overcome; and it is
for this reason, that he adds 'smoking,'_i.e._, that they were near
being altogether extinguished."

Vers. 5, 6. "_Because Aram meditates evil against thee, Ephraim and the
son of Remaliah, saying: Let us go up against Judah, and drive it to
extremity, and conquer it for us, and set up as a king in the midst of
it the son of Tabeal._"

We have here, farther carried out, the thought indicated by the words:
"for the fierce anger," &c. The interval, in the original text, between
vers. 6 and 7, is put in to prevent the false connection of these
verses with ver. 7 (_Hitzig_ and _Ewald_).--[Hebrew: qvC] always means
"to loathe," "to experience disgust;" here, [Pg 36] in Hiph., "to cause
disgust," "to drive to extremity;" comp. my work on Balaam, Rem. on
Num. xxii. 3.--[Hebrew: bqe] means always: "to cleave asunder," "to
open," "to conquer."--The words: "_For us_," show that Tabeal is to be
the vassal only of the two kings. The absolute confidence with which
the Prophet recognizes the futility of the plan of the two kings, forms
a glaring contrast to the modern view of Prophetism, Ver. 2 shows in
what light ordinary consciousness did, and could not fail to look on
the then existing state of things.

Ver. 7. "_Thus saith the Lord Jehovah: It shall not stand, neither
shall it come to pass._" (A plan stands when it is carried out.)

Ver. 8. "_For the head of Aram is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is
Rezin, and in threescore and five years more, Ephraim shall be broken,
and be no more a people._"

Ver. 9. "_And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria
is Remaliah's son. If ye believe not, ye shall not be established._"

Each of these two verses forms a complete whole.--The words: "For the
head of Aram," &c., to "Rezin" receive their explanation from the
antithesis to vers. 5 and 6, where the king of Aram and the king of
Ephraim had declared their intention of extending their dominion over
Judah. As, concerning this intention and this hope, the Lord has
declared His will that it shall not be, we must understand: Not as
regards Judah, and not as regards Jerusalem. It is in vain that men's
thoughts exalt themselves against the purposes of God. From Aram, the
Prophet turns, in the second part of the verse, to Ephraim: "And even
Ephraim! What could it prevail against the Lord and His Kingdom! It
surely should give up all attempts to get more; its days are numbered,
the sword is already suspended over its own head." But inasmuch as it
is possible, although not likely, that Ephraim, before its own
overthrow, may still bring evil upon Judah, this is expressly denied in
ver. 9: Samaria, according to the counsel of God, and the limit
assigned to it, is the head of Ephraim only, and not, at the same time,
of Judah, &c. With this are then connected the closing words: "If ye
believe not, ye shall not be established" (properly, the consequence
will be that ye do not continue), which are equivalent to it: it is
hence not Samaria [Pg 37] and the son of Remaliah that you have to
fear; the enemy whom you have to dread, whom you have to contend
against with prayer and supplication, is in yourselves. Take heed lest
a similar cause produce a similar effect, as in the last clause of ver.
8 it has been threatened against Ephraim.--This prophecy and warning,
one would have expected to have produced an effect so much the deeper,
because they were not uttered by some obscure fanatic, but by a worthy
member of a class which had in its favour the sanction of the Lawgiver,
and which in the course of centuries had been so often and so
gloriously owned and acknowledged by God.[3]

[Pg 38]

Vers. 10, 11. "_And the Lord spoke farther unto Ahaz, saying, Ask thee
a sign of the Lord thy God; ask it from the depth, or above from the
height._"

Ahaz observed a dignified silence after those words of the Prophet;
but his whole manner shews the Prophet that they have not made any
impression upon him. If David's spirit had rested on Ahaz, he would
surely, if he had wavered at all, have, on the word of the Prophet,
thrown himself into the arras of his God. But in order that the
depth of his apostacy, the greatness of his guilt, and the justice
of the divine judgments may become manifest, God shows him even a
deeper condescension. The Prophet offers to prove the truth of his
announcement by any miraculous work which the king himself should
determine, and from which he might, at the same time, see God's
omnipotence, and the Divine mission of the Prophet. As Ahaz refused
the offered sign, the word 2 Tim. ii. 12, 13: [Greek: ei arnoumetha,
kakeinos arnesetai hemas. ei apistoumen, ekeinos pistos
menei--arnesasthai gar heauton ou dunatai] came into application.
According to Deut. vii. 9 ff. the truth and faithfulness of God must
now manifest itself in the [Pg 39] infliction of severe visitations
upon the house of David.--The character of a _sign_ is, in general,
borne by everything which serves for certifying facts which belong to
the territory of faith, and not to that of sight. 1. In some instances,
the sign consists in a mere naked word; thus in Exod. iii. 12: "And
this shall be the sign unto thee that I have sent thee: When thou hast
brought forth the people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this
mountain." Moses'doubts of the truth of his Divine mission originated
in the consciousness of his own unworthiness, and in the condition of
those to whom he was sent. From these doubts he was delivered by the
announcement that, at the place where he had been called, he, at the
head of the delivered people, should serve his God. This was to him a
_sign_ that God was in earnest in calling him. 2. In other instances
the assurance given by the sign consists in its perceptibility and
corporeality; so that the word assumes, as it were, flesh and blood. A
case of this kind it is, _e.g._, when, in chap. viii. 18, Isaiah calls
his two sons, to whom, at the command of God, he had given symbolical
names, expressive of the future salvation of the covenant-people,
"Signs and wonders in Israel;" farther, chap. xx. 3, where the Prophet
walks naked and barefoot for a sign of the calamity impending over
Egypt and Ethiopia in three years. 3. In another class of signs, a fact
is announced which is, in itself, natural, but not to be foreseen by
any human combination, the coming to pass of which, in the immediate
future, furnishes the proof that, at a distant future, that will be
fulfilled which was foretold as impending. The wonderful element, and
the demonstrative power do not, in such a case, lie in the matter of
the sign, but in the telling of it beforehand. It is in this sense
that, in 1 Sam. x., Samuel gives several _signs_ to Saul, that God had
destined him to be king, _e.g._, that in a place exactly fixed, he
would meet two men who would bring him the intelligence that the lost
asses were found; that, farther onwards, he would meet with three men,
one of whom would be carrying three kids, another, three loaves of
bread, and another, a bottle of wine, &c. In 1 Sam. ii. 34, the sudden
death of his two sons is given to Eli as a sign that all the calamities
threatened against his family should certainly come to pass. In Jer.
xliv. 29, 30, the impending defeat of Pharaoh-Hophras is given as a
_sign_ of the divine vengeance breaking in upon the Jews in Egypt. Even
before the [Pg 40] thing came to pass, it could not in such a case, be
otherwise than that the previous condition and foundation brought
before the eyes in a lively manner (Jer. xliv. 30: "_Behold_, I give
Pharaoh-Hophras into the hands of his enemies") gave a powerful shock
to the doubts as to whether the fact in question would come to pass. 4.
In other cases, the assurance was given in such a manner, that all
doubts as to the truth of the announcement were set at rest by the
immediate performance of a miraculous work going beyond the ordinary
laws of nature. Thus, _e.g._, Isaiah says to Hezekiah, in chap. xxviii.
7: "And this shall be the sign unto thee from the Lord, that the Lord
will do this thing which He has spoken," and, as a _sign_ that the Lord
would add fifteen years to the life of the King, who was sick unto
death, he makes the shadow on the sun-dial of Ahaz to go back ten
degrees. Of this description were also the signs granted to Gideon,
and, in many respects, the plagues in Egypt also. In the passage before
us, no other sign can possibly be spoken of than one of the _two last
classes_. For it was a real, miraculous sign only which could possibly
exert any influence on a mind so darkened as was that of Ahaz, and it
was the vain offer of such an one only which was fitted to bring to
light his obduracy. If, then, the Prophet was willing and able to give
a real, miraculous sign, why, then, is the answer of Ahaz so
unsuitable? And we can surely not suppose, as _Meier_ does, that he
should have intentionally misunderstood the Prophet. The temptation of
the Lord by the children of Israel, to which the word of the Lord,
Deut. vi. 16, quoted by Ahaz, refers, consisted, according to Exod.
xvii., in their having asked _water_, as a _miraculous sign_ that the
Lord was truly in the midst of them. How could the Prophet reproach
Ahaz with having offended, not men merely, but God, unless he had
offered to prove, by a fact which lay absolutely beyond the limits of
nature, the truth of his announcement, the divinity of Him who gave it,
the divinity of his own mission, and the soundness of his advice?
_Hendewerk_ is of opinion that "it is difficult to say what the author
would have made to be the sign in the heavens; probably, a very simple
thing." But in making this objection it is forgotten that Isaiah gives
_free choice_ to the king. _Hitzig_ says: "Without knowing it, Isaiah
here plays a very dangerous game. For if Ahaz had accepted his
proposition, Jehovah would [Pg 41] probably have left His servant in
the lurch, and he would have begun to doubt of his God and of himself."
In these words, at all events, it is conceded that the prophets
themselves would not be what people in modern times would have them to
be. If such was their position towards _miracles_, then, in their own
convictions, _prophecies_, too, must be something else than general
descriptions, and indefinite forebodings. But how should it have been
possible that an order could have maintained itself for centuries, the
most prominent members of which gave themselves up to such enthusiastic
imprudence and rashness? Moreover, it is overlooked that afterwards, to
Hezekiah, our Prophet grants that in reality which here he offers to
Ahaz in vain,--[Hebrew: hemq] and [Hebrew: hgbh] are _Infin. absol._
"going high," "going low." The Imperat. [Hebrew: walh] must be
understood after [Hebrew: hgbh] also. Some explain [Hebrew: walh] by
"to hell," "down to hell;" but this is against the form of the word,
which it would be arbitrary to change. Nor does one exactly see how, if
we except, perhaps, the apparition of one dead, Isaiah could have given
to the king a sign from the Sheol; and in other passages, too (comp.
Joel iii. 3 [ii. 30]), signs in the heavens and in the earth are
contrasted with one another. _Theodoret_ remarks that both kinds of
miracles, among which the Lord here allowed a choice to Ahaz, were
granted by Him to his pious son, Hezekiah, inasmuch as He wrought a
phenomenon in _heaven_ which affected the going back of the shadow on
the sun-dial of Ahaz; and on _earth_, inasmuch as He, in a wonderful
manner, destroyed the Assyrians, and restored the king to health.
_Jerome_ farther remarks, that, from among the plagues in Egypt, the
lice, frogs, &c., were signs on earth; the hail, fire, and three day's
darkness, were signs in the heaven. It is on the passage before us that
the Pharisees take their stand, when in Matt. xvi. 1 they ask from the
Lord that He should grant them a sign from heaven. If even the Prophet
Isaiah offered to prove in such a manner his divine mission, then,
according to their opinion, Christ was much more bound to do this,
inasmuch as He set up far higher claims. But they overlooked the
circumstance that enough had already been granted for convincing those
who were well disposed, and that it can never be a duty to convince
obstinate unbelief in a manner so palpable.

[Pg 42]

Ver. 12. "_And Ahaz said: I will not ask, neither will I tempt the
Lord._"

Ahaz declines the offer by referring to Deut. vi. 16., and thus
assuming the guise of reverence for God and His commandment. "He
pretends," says _Calvin_, "to have faith in the words of the Prophet,
and not to require anything besides the word." The same declarations of
the Law, the Lord opposes to Satan, when the latter would induce Him to
do something for which he had no word of God, Matt. iv. 7. That would
really have been a tempting of God. Ahaz had no doubt that the miracle
would really be performed; but he had a dislike to enter within the
mystical sphere. Who knows whether the God who grants the miracle is
really the highest God? comp. Is. x. 10, 11, xxxvi. 18-20, xxxvii.
10-12. Who knows whether He is not laying for him a trap; whether, by
preventing him from seeking the help of man. He is not to bring upon
him the destruction which his conscience tells him he has so richly
deserved? At all events the affording of His help is clogged with a
condition which he is resolved not to fulfil, viz., his conversion. A
better and easier bargain, he thought, could be struck with the
Assyrians; how insatiable soever they might be, they did not ask the
heart. How many do even now-a-days rather perish in sin and misery,
than be converted!

Ver. 13. "_And he said: Hear ye now, O house of David: Is it too little
for you to provoke man, that you provoke also my God?_"

When Ahaz had before refused to believe in the simple announcement of
the Prophet, his sin was more pardonable; for, inasmuch as Isaiah had
not proved himself outwardly as a divine ambassador, Ahaz sinned to a
certain degree against man only, against the Prophet only, by unjustly
suspecting him of a deceitful pretension to a divine revelation. Hence,
Isaiah continues mild and gentle. But when Ahaz declined the offered
sign, _God himself_ was provoked by him, and his wickedness came
evidently to light. It is substantially the same difference as that
between the sin against the _Son of Man_, the Christ coming outwardly
and as a man only (Bengel: _quo statu conspicu, quatenus aequo tum loco
cum hominibus conversabatur_), and the sin against the Holy Ghost who
powerfully glorifies Him outwardly and inwardly. It is the antithesis
[Pg 43] of the relative ignorance of what one is doing, and of the
absolute unwillingness which purposely hardens itself to the truth
known, or easy to be known. We say _relative_ ignorance; for an element
of obduracy and hardening already existed, if he did not believe the
Prophet, even without a sign. For the fact that the Prophet was sent by
God, and spoke God's word, was testified to all who would hear it, even
by the inner voice, just as in every sin against the Son of Man there
is always already an element of the sin against the Holy Ghost.--The
truth that godlessness is the highest folly is here seen in a very
evident manner. The same Ahaz who rejects the offer of the living God,
who palpably wishes to reveal to him that He is a living God,
sacrifices his son to the dead idol Moloch, who never yet gave the
smallest sign of life! In this mirror we may see the condition of human
nature.--The circumstance that it is not Ahaz, but the house of David
that is addressed, indicates that the deed is a deed of the whole
house.--The Prophet says, "_My God_," _i.e._, the God whose faithful
servant I am, and in whom ye hypocrites have no more any share. In Ver.
11, the Prophet had still called Him the God of Ahaz.

Ver. 14. "_Therefore the Lord himself giveth you a sign: Behold the
Virgin is with child, and heareth a Son, and thou callest his name
Immanuel._"

Ahaz had refused the proffered sign; the whole depth of his apostacy
had become manifest; no further regard was to be had to him. But it was
necessary to strengthen those who feared God, in their confidence in
the Lord, and in their hope in him. For this reason, the Prophet gives
a sign, even against the will of Ahaz, by which the announcement of the
deliverance from the two kings was confirmed. Your weak, prostrate
faith, he says, may erect itself on the certain fact that, in the Son
of the Virgin, the Lord will some day be with us in the truest manner,
and may perceive therein a guarantee and a pledge of the lower help in
the present danger also.--"Therefore"--because ye will not fix upon a
sign. _Reinke_, in the ably written Monograph on this passage, assigns
to [Hebrew: lkN] the signification, "nevertheless," which is not
supported by the _usus loquendi_.--[Hebrew: itN] must be translated as
a Present; for the pregnancy of the Virgin and birth of Immanuel are
present to [Pg 44] the Prophet; and the fact cannot serve as a sign, in
so far as it manifests itself outwardly, but only in so far as, by
being foretold, it is realized as present.--[Hebrew: hva] _He_, _i.e._,
of His own accord without any co-operation, such as would have taken
place if Ahaz had asked the sign.--[Hebrew: lkM] refers by its form to
the house of David; but in determining the sign, it is not the real
condition of its representative at that time which is regarded, but as
he ought to be. In substance, the sign given to ungodly Ahaz is
destined for believers only.--[Hebrew: hnh] "behold" indicates the
energy with which the Prophet anticipates the future; in his spirit
it becomes to him the immediate present. Thus it was understood as
early as by _Chrysostom_: [Greek: monon gar ouk horontos en ta ginomena
kai phantazomenou kai pollen echontos huper ton eiremenon plerophorian,
ton gar hemeteron ophthalmon ekeinoi saphesteron ta me horomena
eblepon.]--The article in [Hebrew: helmh] cannot refer to _the_ virgin
_known_ as the mother of the Saviour; for, besides the passage before
us, it is only Micah v. 2 (3) which mentions the mother of the Saviour,
and it is our passage only which speaks of her as a _virgin_. In
harmony with [Hebrew: hnh], the article in [Hebrew: helmh] might be
explained from the circumstance that the Virgin is present to the
inward perception of the Prophet--equivalent to "the virgin there." But
since the use of the article in the _generic_ sense is so general, it
is most natural to understand "the virgin" as forming a contrast to the
married or old woman, and hence, in substance, as here equivalent to
_a_ virgin. To this view we are led also by the circumstance that, in
the parallel passage, Mic. v. 2 (3) [Hebrew: ivldh] "a bearing woman"
is used without the article.--[Hebrew: elmh] is, by old expositors,
commonly derived from [Hebrew: elM] in the signification "to conceal" A
virgin, they assume, is called a _concealed_ one, with reference to the
customs of the East, where the virgins are obliged to lead a concealed
life. Thus it was understood by _Jerome_ also: "_Almah_ is not applied
to girls or virgins generally, but is used emphatically of a hidden and
concealed virgin, who is never accessible to the look of males, but who
is with great care watched by the parents." But all parties now rightly
agree that the word is to be derived from [Hebrew: elM], in the
signification, "to grow up." To offer here any arguments in proof would
be a work of supererogation, as they are offered by all dictionaries.
But with all that, _Luther's_ remark is even now in full force: "If [Pg
45] a Jew or a Christian can prove to me that in any passage of
Scripture _Almah_ means 'a married woman,'I will give him a hundred
florins, although God alone knows where I may find them." It is true
that [Hebrew: elmh] is distinguished from [Hebrew: btvlh], which
designates the virgin state as such, and in this signification occurs
in Joel i. 8. also where the bride laments over her bridegroom whom she
has lost by death. Inviolate chastity is, in itself, not implied in the
word. But certain it is that [Hebrew: elmh] designates an unmarried
person in the first years of youth; and if this be the case, un
violated chastity is a matter of course in this context; for if the
mother of the Saviour was to be an _unmarried_ person, she could be a
virgin only; and, in general, it is inconceivable that the Prophet
should have brought forward a relation of impure love. In favour of "an
unmarried person" is, in the first instance, the derivation. Being
derived from [Hebrew: elM], "to grow up," "to become marriageable,"
[Hebrew: elmh] can denote nothing else than _puella nubilis_. But still
more decisive is the _usus loquendi_. In Arabic and Syriac the
corresponding words are never used of married women, and _Jerome_
remarks, that in the Punic dialect also a virgin proper is called
[Hebrew: elmh]. Besides in the passage before us, the word occurs in
Hebrew six times (Gen. xxiv. 43; Exod. ii. 8; Ps. lxviii. 26; Song of
Sol. i. 3, vi. 8; Prov. xxx. 19); but in all these passages the word
is undeniably used of unmarried persons. In the two passages of the
Song of Solomon, the [Hebrew: elmvt] designate the nations which have
not yet attained to an union with the heavenly Solomon, but are
destined for this union. In chap. vi. 8, they are, as _brides_,
expressly contrasted with the _wives_ of the first and second class.
Marriage forms the boundary; the _Almah_ appears here distinctly as the
anti-thesis to a married woman. It is the passage in Proverbs only
which requires a more minute examination, as the opponents have given
up all the other passages, and seek in it alone a support for their
assertion that [Hebrew: elmh] may be used of a married woman also. The
passage in its connection runs as follows: Ver. 18. "There be three
things which are too wonderful for me, and four which I know not. Ver.
19. The way of an eagle in the air, the way of a serpent upon the rock,
the way of a ship in the heart of the sea, and the way of a man with a
maid. Ver. 20. This is the way of an adulterous woman; she [Pg 46]
eateth, and wipeth her mouth and saith: I have done no wickedness."
According to _De Wette_, _Bertheau_, and others, the _tertium
comparationis_ for every thing is to lie in this only, that the ways do
not leave any trace that could be recognized. But the traceless
disappearing is altogether without foundation; there is not one word to
indicate it; and it is quite impossible that that on which every thing
depends should have been left to conjecture. Farther,--instead of the
eagle, every other bird might have been mentioned, and the words "in
the air" would be without meaning, as well as the words "in the heart
of the sea" mentioned in reference to the ship. But the real point of
view is expressly stated in ver. 18. It is the _incomprehensible_. It
is thus only that ver. 20, for which the other verses prepare the way,
falls in with the tendency of the whole. In the way of the adulteress,
that which is pointed out is not that it cannot be known, but the moral
incomprehensibility that she, practising great wickedness which is
worthy of death, and will unavoidably bring destruction upon her,
behaves as if there were nothing wrong, as if a permitted enjoyment
were the point in question, that she eats the poisoned bread of
unchaste enjoyment as if it were ordinary bread; comp. ix. 17, xx. 17;
Ps. xiv. 4. Four incomprehensible things in the natural territory are
made use of to illustrate an incomprehensible thing in the ethical
territory. The whole purpose is _to point out the mystery of sin_. In
the case of the _eagle_, it is the boldness of his flight in which the
miraculous consists. The speed and boldness of his flight is elsewhere
also very commonly mentioned as the characteristic of the eagle; it is
just that which makes him the king of birds. In the case of the
_serpent_, the wonder is that, although wanting feet, it yet moves over
the smooth rock which is inaccessible to the proud horse; comp. Amos
vi. 12: "Do horses run upon the rock." In the _ship_, it is the
circumstance that she safely passes over the abyss which, as it would
appear, could not fail to swallow her up. _The way of a man with a
maid_ occupies the last place in order to intimate that [Hebrew: drK],
as in the case of the adulteress, denotes the _spiritual_ way. What is
here meant is the relation of the man to the virgin, _generally_, for
if any _particular_ aspect had been regarded, _e. g._, that of
boldness, cunning, or secrecy, it [Pg 47] ought to have been pointed
at. The way of the man with the maid is the secret of which mention is
made as early as in Gen. ii. 24,--the union of the strong with the weak
and tender (comp. the parallel passage, Jer. xxxi. 22), the secret
attraction which connects with one another the hearts, and at last, the
bodies. The end of the way is marriage. It is the _young_ love which
specially bears the character of the mysterious; after the relation has
been established, it attracts less wonder.--[Hebrew: hrh] is the femin.
of the verbal adj. [Hebrew: hrh]. The fundamental passage, Gen. xvi.
11, where the angel of the Lord says to Hagar: "Behold thou art with
child, and shalt bear a son, and shalt call his name Ishmael, because
the Lord has heard thy affliction," shows that we must translate: The
virgin _is_ with child, and not: becomes with child. The allusion to
that passage in Genesis is very significant. In that case, as well as
in the one under consideration, salvation is brought into connection
with the birth of a child. To the birth of Ishmael, the despairing
Hagar is directed as to a security for the divine favour; to the birth
of Immanuel, the desponding people are directed as to the actual proof
that God is with them. If the _Almah_ represents herself to the Prophet
as being already with child, then passages such as Is. xxix. 8, Matt.
xi. 5, are not applicable. A virgin who is with child cannot be one who
was a virgin.--The form [Hebrew: qrat] may be 3d fem. for [Hebrew:
qrah], comp. Jer. xliv. 23; but the fundamental passage in Gen. xvi. 11
is decisive for considering it as the 2d fem.: "_thou_ callest," as an
address to the virgin; in which case the form is altogether regular. It
was not a rare occurrence in Israel that mothers gave the name to
children, Gen. iv. 1, 25, xix. 37, xxix. 32. The circumstance,
therefore, that the giving of the name is assigned to the mother (the
virgin) affords no ground for supposing, as many of the older
expositors do, that this is an intimation that the child would not have
a human father. "Thou callest" can, on the contrary, according to the
custom then prevalent, be substantially equivalent to: they shall name,
Matt. [Greek: kalesousi], _Jerome_: _vocabitur_. The name is, of
course, not to be considered as an ordinary _nomen proprium_, but as a
designation of his nature and character. It may be understood in
different ways. Several interpreters, _e. g._, _Jerome_, referring to
passages such as Ps. xlvi. 8, lxxxix. 25, Is. xliii. 2, Jer. i. 8, see
[Pg 48] in it nothing else than an appeal to, and promise of divine
aid. According to others, the name is to be referred to God's becoming
man in the Messiah; thus _Theodoret_ says: "The name reveals the God
who is with us, the God who became man, the God who took upon Him the
human nature." In a similar manner _Irenaeus_, _Tertullian_,
_Chrysostom_, _Lactantius_, _Calvin_, and others, express themselves.
But those very parallel passages just quoted show that the name in
itself has no distinct reference to the incarnation of God in Christ.
But from the passage chap. ix. 5, (6), which is so closely connected
with the one before us, and in which the Messiah is called _God-hero_,
(the mighty God), and His divine nature so emphatically pointed out
(comp. also Mic. v. 1 [2],) it plainly appears that the Prophet had in
view the highest and truest form of God's being with His people, such
as was made manifest when the word became flesh. (Chrysostom says:
"Then, above all, God was with us on earth, when He was seen on earth,
and conversed with man, and manifested so great care for us.")

According, then, to the interpretation given, this verse before us
affirms that, at some future period, the Messiah should be born by a
virgin, among the covenant people, who in the truest manner would bring
God near to them, and open the treasures of His salvation. In Vol. I.
p. 500 ff., we proved that this explanation occurs already in the
Gospel according to St. Matthew. According to the interpretation of the
Apostle, the passage can refer to Christ only, and finds in him not
only the highest, but the only fulfilment. In the Christian Church,
throughout all ages, the Messianic explanation was the prevailing one.
It was held by all the Fathers of the Church, and by all other
Christian commentators down to the middle of the 18th century,--only
that some, besides the higher reference to the Messiah, assumed a lower
one to some event of that period. With the revival of faith, this view,
too, has been revived. It is proved by the parallel passage, chap. ix.
5 (6). That passage presents so remarkable an agreement with the one
now under consideration, that we cannot but assume the same subject in
both. "Behold, a virgin is with child, and beareth a son"--"A child is
born unto us, a son is given;"--"They call him Immanuel," _i.e._, Him
in whom God will be with us in the truest manner--"They call Him [Pg
49] Wonder-Counsellor, the God-Hero, Ever-Father, the Prince of Peace."
Both of these passages can the less be separated from one another, that
chap. viii. 8 is evidently intended to lead from the one to the other.
In this passage it is said of the _world's power_, which in the
meantime, and in the first place, was represented by _Asshur_: "And the
stretchings out of his wings are the fulness of the breadth of thy
land, Immanuel," i. e., his wings will cover the whole extent of thy
land,--the stretching of the wings of this immense bird of prey,
Asshur, comprehends the whole land. In the words: "Thy land, O
Immanuel," the prophecy of the wonderful Child, in chap. viii. 23-ix. 6
(ix. 1-7), is already prepared. The land in which Immanuel is to be
born, which belongs to Him, cannot remain continually the property of
heathen enemies. Every destruction is, at the same time, a prophecy of
the restoration. A look to the wonderful Child, and despair must flee.
Behind the clouds, the sun is shining. Every attempt to assign the
Immanuel to the lower sphere, must by this passage be rendered futile.
For how, in that case, could Canaan be called _His_ land? The
signification "native country" which [Hebrew: arC], it is true,
sometimes receives by the context, does not suit here. For the passage
just points out the contrast of reality and idea, that the world's
power takes possession of the land which _belongs_ to Immanuel, and
hence prepares for the announcement contained in that which follows,
viz., that this contrast shall be done away with, and that this shall
be done as soon as the legitimate proprietor comes into His kingdom.
Farther,--Decisive in favour of the Messianic explanation is also the
passage Mic. v. 1, 2, (2, 3), where, in correspondence to _virgin_
here, we have, _she who is bearing_. The latter, indeed, is not
expressly called a virgin; but it follows, as a matter of course, that
she be so, as she is to bear the Hero of Divine origin ("_of
eternity_"), who, hence, cannot have been begotten by any mortal. Both
of the prophecies mutually illustrate one another. "Micah designates
the Divine origin of the Promised One; Isaiah, the miraculous
circumstances of His birth" (_Rosenmueller_) Just as Isaiah holds up the
birth of Immanuel as the pledge that the covenant-people would not
perish in their present catastrophe; just as he points to the shining
form of Immanuel, announcing the victory over the [Pg 50] world, in
order to comfort them in the impending severe oppression by the world's
power (viii. 8);--so Micah makes the oppression by the world's power
continue only until the time that she who is bearing brings forth. As
Micah, in v. 1 (2), contrasts the divine dignity and nature with the
birth in time, so, in Isaiah, Immanuel, He in whom God will most truly
be with His people, is born by a virgin.

The arguments which the Jews, and, following their example, the
rationalistic interpreters, especially _Gesenius_, and with them
_Olshausen_, have advanced against the Messianic explanation, prove
nothing. They are these:

1. "A reference to the Messiah who, after the lapse of centuries, is to
be born of a virgin, appears to be without meaning in the present
circumstances." This argument proves too much, and, hence, nothing. _It
would be valid against Messianic prophecies in general_, the existence
of which certainly cannot be denied. Do not Jeremiah and Ezekiel, at
the time when the people were carried away into captivity, comfort them
by the announcement that the kingdom of God should, in a far more
glorious manner, be established by Messiah, whose appearance was yet
several centuries distant? The highest proof of Israel's dignity and
election, was the promise that, at some future time, the Messiah was to
be born among them. How, indeed, could the Lord leave, without the
lower help in the present calamity, a people with whom He was to be, at
some future period, in the truest manner? The Prophet refers to the
future Saviour in a way quite similar to that in which the Apostle
refers to Him, after He had appeared: "Who did not spare His only
begotten Son, but gave Him up for us all, how should He not in Him give
us all things freely?" Let us only realize the truth that the hope in
the Messiah formed the centre of the life of believers; that this hope
was, by fear, repressed only, but not destroyed. All which was needed,
therefore, was to revive this hope, and with it the special hope for
the present distress also was given--the assurance, firm as a rock,
that in it the covenant-people could not perish. This revival took
place in this way, that in the mind of the Prophet, the Messianic hope
was, by the Holy Spirit, rekindled, so that at his light all might
kindle their lights. The Messianic idea here meets us in such
originality [Pg 51] and freshness, as if here were its real fountain
head. The faith already existing is only the foundation, only the point
of connexion. What is essential is the new revelation of the old truth,
and that could not fail to be affecting, overpowering to susceptible
minds.

2. "The ground of consolation is too _general_. The Messiah might be
born from the family of Ahaz without the Jewish state being preserved
in its then existing condition, and without Ahaz continuing on the
throne. The Babylonish captivity intervened, and yet Messiah was to be
born. Isaiah would thus have made himself guilty of a false sophistical
argumentation."--We answer: What they, at that time, feared, was the
total destruction of state and people. This appears sufficiently from
the circumstance that the prophet takes his son Shearjashub with him;
and indeed the intentions of the enemy in this respect are expressed
with sufficient clearness in ver. 6. It is this _extreme_ of fear which
the Prophet here first opposes. Just as, according to the preceding
verses, he met the fear of entire destruction by taking with him his
son Shearjashub, "the remnant will be converted," without thereby
excluding a temporary carrying away, so he there also prepares the mind
for the announcement contained in vers. 15, 16, of the near deliverance
from the present danger, by first representing the fear of an entire
destruction to be unfounded. A people, moreover, to whom, at some
future period, although it may be at a very remote future, a divine
_Saviour_ is to be sent, must, in the present also, be under special
divine protection. They may be visited by severe sufferings, they may
be brought to the very verge of destruction,--whether that shall be the
case the Prophet does not, as yet, declare,--but one thing is sure,
that to them all things must work together for good; and that is the
main point. He who is convinced of this, may calmly and quietly look at
the course of events.

3. "The sense in which [Hebrew: avt] is elsewhere used in Scripture, is
altogether disregarded by this interpretation. For, according to it,
[Hebrew: avt] would refer to a future event; but according to the _usus
loquendi_ elsewhere observed, [Hebrew: avt] 'is a prophesied second
event, the earlier fulfilment of which is to afford a sure guarantee
for the fulfilment of the first, which is really the point at issue.'"
But, in opposition to this, it is sufficient to [Pg 52] refer to Exod.
iii. 12, where Moses receives this as a sign of his Divine mission, and
of the deliverance of the people to be effected by him: "When thou hast
brought forth my people out of Egypt, ye shall serve God upon this
mountain." In chap. xxxvii. 30, our Prophet himself, as a confirmation
of the word spoken in reference to the king of Asshur: "I make thee
return by the way by which thou earnest," gives this sign, that, in the
third year after this, agriculture should already have altogether
returned into its old tracks, and the cultivation of the country should
have been altogether restored.[4] The fact here given as a sign is
later than that which is to be thereby made sure. The sign consists
only in this, that the idea is vividly called up and realized in the
mind, that the land would recover from the destruction; and this of
course, implies the destruction of the enemy. But in our chapter
itself,--the name of Shearjashub affords the example of a sign (comp.
chap. vii. 18), which is taken from the territory of the distant
future. It is time that _commonly_ [Hebrew: avt] is not used of future
things; but this has its reason not in the idea of [Hebrew: avt], but
solely in the circumstance that, ordinarily, the future cannot serve
as a sign of assurance. But it is quite obvious that, in the present
case, the Messianic announcement _could_ afford such a sign, and that
in a far higher degree than the future facts given as signs in Exod.
iii., and Isa. xxxvii. The kingdom of glory which has been promised
to us, forms to us also a sure pledge that in all the distresses of
the Church, the Lord will not withhold His help from her. But the
Covenant-people stood in the same relation to the first appearance of
Christ, as we do to the second.

(4.) "The passage, chap. viii. 3, 4, presents the most marked
resemblance to the one before us. If _there_ the Messianic explanation
be decidedly inadmissible, it must be so _here_ also. The name and
birth of a child serves, there as here, for a sign of the deliverance
from the Syrian dominion. If then _there_ the mother of the child be
the wife of the Prophet, and the child a son of his, the same must be
the case _here_ also." But it is _a priori_ improbable that the Prophet
should have given [Pg 53] to two of his sons names which had reference
to the same event. To this must be added the circumstance, that the
_time is wanting_ for the birth of two sons of the Prophet. Before
Immanuel knows to refuse the evil and choose the good, the country of
both the hostile kings shall be desolated, chap. vii. 15; before
Mahershalalhashbaz knows to cry My Father, My Mother, the riches of
Damascus and the spoil of Samaria shall be carried before the king of
Assyria, chap. viii. 4. The two births hence coincide. At all events,
it is impossible to find the time for a double birth by the same
mother. Several interpreters (_Gesenius_, _Hitzig_, _Hendewerk_,)
assume the identity of Immanuel and Mahershalalhashbaz; but this is
altogether inadmissible, even from the difference of the names. It is
the less admissible to assume a double name for the child, as the name
Shearjashub plainly enough shews that the Prophet was in earnest with
the names of his children; and indeed, unless they had been real proper
names, there would have existed no reason at all for giving them to
them. To have assigned several names to one child would have weakened
their power. The agreement must, therefore, rather be explained from
the circumstance, that it was by the announcement in chap. vii. 14 that
the Prophet was induced to the symbolical action in chap. viii. 3, 4.
He has, in chap. vii. 14, given to the despairing people the birth of a
child, who would bring the highest salvation for Israel, as a pledge of
their deliverance. The birth of a child and its name were then required
as an actual prophecy of help in the present distress,--a help which
was to be granted with a view to that Child, who not only indicates,
but grants deliverance from all distresses, and to whom the Prophet
reverts in chap. ix., and even already in chap. viii. 8.--Moreover,
besides the agreement there is found a thorough difference. In chap.
vii. the mother of the child is called [Hebrew: helmh], whereby a
virgin only can be designated; in chap. viii., "the prophetess." In
chap. vii. there is not even the slightest allusion to the Prophet's
being the father; while in chap. viii. this circumstance is expressly
and emphatically pointed out. In chap. vii. it is the mother who gives
the name to the child; in chap. viii. it is the Prophet. Far closer is
the agreement of chap. ix. 5 (6) with chap. vii. 14. It especially
appears in the circumstances that in neither of them [Pg 54] is the
father of the child designated; and, farther, in the correspondence of
Immanuel with [Hebrew: al gbvr], God-Hero.

(5.) "Against the Messianic explanation, and in favour of that of a son
of the Prophet, is the passage chap. viii. 18, where the Prophet says
that his sons have been given to him for signs and wonders in Israel."
But although Immanuel be erroneously reckoned among the sons of the
Prophet, there still remain Shearjashub and Mahershalalhashbaz. The
latter name refers, _in the first instance only_, to Aram and Ephraim
specially; or the general truth which it declares is applied to this
relation only. But, just as the name Shearjashub announces new
_salvation_ to the prostrate _people of God_, so the second name
announces near _destruction_ to the triumphing _world_ hostile to God;
so that both the names supplement one another. As _signs_, these two
sons of the Prophet pointed to the future deliverance and salvation of
Israel, and the defeat of the world; and the very circumstance that
they did so when, humanly viewed, all seemed to be lost, was a subject
for wonder. But that we can in no case make Immanuel a third son of the
Prophet, we have already proved.

Ver. 15. _Cream and honey shall he eat, when he knows to refuse the
evil and choose the good._ Ver. 16. _For before the boy shall know to
refuse the evil and choose the good, the country shall be forsaken of
the two kings of which thou standest in awe._

The older Messianic explanation has, in these two verses, exposed
itself to the charge of being quite arbitrary. Most of the interpreters
assume that, in ver. 15, the true humanity of the Saviour is announced.
The name Immanuel is intended to indicate the divine nature; the eating
of milk and honey the human nature. Milk and honey are in this case
considered as the ordinary food for babes; like other children. He
shall grow up, and, like them, gradually develope. Thus _Jerome_ says:
"I shall mention another feature still more wonderful: That you may not
believe that he will be born a phantasm. He will use the food of
infants, will eat butter and milk." _Calvin_ says: "In order that here
we may not think of some spectre, the Prophet states signs of humanity
from which he proves that Christ, indeed put on our flesh." In the same
manner _Irenaenus_, _Chrysostom_, _Basil_, and, in our century,
_Kleuker_ and _Rosenmueller_ speak.--But this explanation [Pg 55] is
altogether overthrown by ver. 16. Most interpreters assume, in the
latter verse, a change of subject; by [Hebrew: ner], not Immanuel, but
Shearjashub, who accompanied the Prophet, is to be understood.
According to others, it is not any definite boy who is designated by
[Hebrew: ner]; but it is said in general, that the devastation of the
hostile country would take place in a still shorter time than that
which elapses between the birth of a boy and his development. Such is
_Calvin's_ view. But the supposition of a change of subject is
altogether excluded, even by the circumstance that one and the same
quality, the distinction between good and evil, is in both verses
ascribed to the subject. Others, like _J. H. Michaelis_, refer ver. 16
also to the Messiah, and seek to get out of the difficulty by a _jam
dudum_. It is not worth while to enter more particularly upon these
productions of awkward embarassment. All that is required is, to remove
the stone of offence which has caused these interpreters to stumble.
Towards this a good beginning has been made by _Vitringa_, without,
however, completely attaining the object. In ver. 14, the Prophet has
seen the birth of the Messiah as present. Holding fast this idea, and
expanding it, the Prophet makes him who has been born accompany the
people through all the stages of its existence. We have here an _ideal
anticipation of the real incarnation_, the right of which lies in the
circumstance, that all blessings and deliverances which, before Christ,
were bestowed upon the covenant-people, had their root in His future
birth, and the cause of which was given in the circumstance, that the
covenant-people had entered upon the moment of their great crisis, of
their conflict with the world's powers, which could not but address a
call to invest the comforting thought with, as it were, flesh and
blood, and in this manner to place it into the midst of the popular
life. What the Prophet means, and intends to say here is this, _that,
in the space of about a twelvemonth, the overthrow of the hostile
kingdoms would already have taken place_. As the representative of the
cotemporaries, he brings forward the wonderful child who, as it were,
formed the soul of the popular life. _At the time when this child knows
to distinguish between good and bad food, hence, after the space of
about a twelvemonth, he will not have any want of nobler food,_ ver.
15, _for before he has entered upon this stage, the land of_ [Pg 56]
_the two hostile kings shall be desolate._ In the subsequent prophecy,
the same wonderful child, grown up into a warlike hero, brings the
deliverance from Asshur, and the world's power represented by it.--We
have still to consider and discuss the particular. _What is indicated
by the eating of cream and honey?_ The erroneous answer to this
question, which has become current ever since _Gesenius_, has put
everything into confusion, and has misled expositors such as _Hitzig_
and _Meier_ to cut the knot, by asserting that ver. 15 is spurious.
Cream and honey can come into consideration as the noblest food only;
the eating of them can indicate only a _condition of plenty and
prosperity_. "A land flowing with milk and honey" is, in the books of
Moses, a standing expression for designating the rich fulness of noble
food which the Holy Land offers. A land which flows with milk and honey
is, according to Numb. xiv. 7, 8, a "very good land." The _cream_ is,
as it were, a gradation of _milk_. Considering the predilection for fat
and sweet food which we perceive everywhere in the Old Testament, there
can scarcely be anything better than cream and honey; and it is
certainly not spoken in accordance with Israelitish taste, if _Hofmann_
(_Weiss_, i. S. 227) thus paraphrases the sense: "It is not because he
does not know what tastes well and better (cream and honey thus the
evil!), that he will live upon the food which an uncultivated land can
afford, but because there is none other." In Deut. xxxii. 13, 14, cream
and honey appear among the noblest products of the Holy Land. Abraham
places cream before his heavenly guests, Gen. xviii. 8. The plenty in
honey and cream appears in Job xx. 7, as a characteristic sign of the
divine blessing of which the wicked are deprived. It is solely and
exclusively vers. 21 and 22 that are referred to for establishing the
erroneous interpretation. It is asserted that, according to these
verses, the eating of milk and honey must be considered as an evil, as
the sad consequence of a general devastation of the hind. But there are
grave objections to any attempt at explaining a preceding from a
subsequent passage; the opposite mode of proceeding is the right one.
It is altogether wrong, however, to suppose that vers. 21, 22, contain
a threatening. In those verses the Prophet, on the contrary, allows, as
is usual with him, a _ray of light_ to fall upon the dark picture of
the [Pg 57] calamity which threatens from Asshur; and it could, indeed,
_a priori_, be scarcely imagined that the threatening should not be
interrupted, at least by such a gentle allusion to the salvation to be
bestowed upon them after the misery (comp. in reference to a similar
sudden breaking through of the proclamation of salvation in Hosea, Vol.
I., p. 175, and the remarks on Micah ii. 12, 13); but then he returns
to the threatening, because it was, in the meantime, his principal
vocation to utter it, and thereby to destroy the foolish illusions of
the God-forgetting king. It is in the subsequent prophecy only, chap
viii. 1; ix. 6 (7) that that which is alluded to in vers. 21, 22 is
carried out. The little which has been left--this is the sense--the
Lord will bless so abundantly, that those who are spared in the divine
judgment will enjoy a rich abundance of divine blessings. Parallel is
the utterance of Isaiah in 2 Kings xix. 30: "And the escaped of the
house of Judah, that which has been left, taketh root downward, and
beareth fruit upward."--If thus the eating of cream and honey be
rightly understood, there is no farther necessity for explaining, in
opposition to the rules of grammar, [Hebrew: ldetv] by "(only) until he
knows" (comp. against this interpretation _Drechsler's Comment._).
[Hebrew: ldetv] can only mean: "belonging to his knowledge, _i.e._,
when he knows." _Good_ and _evil_ are, as early as Deut. i. 39: "Your
sons who to-day do not know good and evil," used more in a physical
than in a moral sense. Michaelis: "_rerum omnium ignari_." The parallel
expression, "not to be able to discern between the right hand and the
left hand," in Jonah iv. 11 (Michaelis: "_discretio rationis et
judicii, ut sciant utra manus sit dextra aut sinistra_") likewise loses
sight of the moral sense. But good and evil are very decidedly used in
a physical sense in 2 Sam. xix. 36 (35), where Barzillai says: "I am
this day fourscore years old, can I discern between good and evil, or
has thy servant a taste of what I eat or drink, or do I hear any more
the voice of singing men or singing women?" The connection with the
eating of cream and honey, by which the good and evil is qualified,
clearly proves that good and evil are, in our passage, used in a
similar sense. To the same result we are led by the circumstance also,
that the evil _precedes_, which must so much the rather have a meaning,
that nowhere else is this the case with this phrase. The evil, the [Pg
58] bad food in the time of war, precedes; the good follows after it:
Cream and honey, the good, he will eat when he knows to refuse the evil
and choose the good, _i.e._, when he is beyond the time where he does
not yet know to make any great difference between the food, and in
which, therefore, the evil, the bad food, is felt as an evil. If the
good and the evil be understood in a physical sense, then, in harmony
with chap. viii. 4, we must think of the period of about one year.
Moral consciousness develops much later than sensual liking and
disliking.--The construction of [Hebrew: mas] and [Hebrew: bHr]
with [Hebrew: b] points to the affection which accompanies the
action.--[Hebrew: ki] in ver. 16 suits very well, according to the view
which we have taken, in its ordinary signification, "for." The full
enjoyment of the good things of the land will return in the period of
about twelve months (in chap. xxxvii. 30 a longer terra is fixed,
because the Assyrian desolation was much greater than the Aramean);
_for_, even before the year has expired, devastation shall be inflicted
upon the land of the enemies. [Hebrew: hadmh] comprehends at the same
time the Syrian and Ephraimitish land.

From ver. 17-25 the Prophet describes how the Assyrians, the object of
the hope of the house of David, and also the Egyptian attracted by
them, who, however, occupy a position altogether subordinate, shall
fill the land, and change it into a wilderness. The fundamental
thought, ever true, is this: He who, instead of seeking help from his
God, seeks it from the world, is ruined by the world. This truth,
which, through the fault of Ahaz, did not gain any _saving_ influence,
obtained an _accusing_ one; it stood there as an incontrovertible
testimony that it was not the Lord who had forsaken His people, but
that they had forsaken themselves. It was a necessary condition of the
blessed influence of the impending calamity that such a testimony
should exist; without it, the calamity would not have led to
repentance, but to despair and defiance.--From the circumstance that in
ver. 17, which contains the outlines of the whole, upon the words: "The
Lord shall bring upon thee and thy people," there follow still the
words: "And upon thy father's house," it appears that the fulfilment
must not be sought for in the time of Ahaz only. In the time of Ahaz,
the _beginning_ only of the calamities here indicated can accordingly
be sought for,--the _germ_ from which all that followed [Pg 59] was
afterwards developed. Nor shall we be allowed to limit ourselves to
that which Judah suffered from the Assyrians, commonly so called. It is
significant that, in 2 Kings xxiii. 29, Nebuchadnezzar is called King
of Asshur. Asshur, as the first representative of the world's power,
represents the world's power in general.


                           * * * * * * * * * *


We have still to submit to an examination those explanations of vers
14-16 which differ, in essential points, from that which we have given.
Difference of opinion--the characteristic sign of error--meets us here,
and that in a very striking manner, in those who oppose the convictions
of the whole Christian Church.

1. _Rosenmueller_ expressed his adherence to the Messianic explanation,
but supposed that the Prophet was of opinion that the Messiah would be
born in his time. Even _Bruno Bauer_ (_Critik der Synopt._ i. S. 19)
could not resist the impression that Immanuel could be none other than
the Messiah. But he, too, is of opinion that Isaiah expected a Messiah,
who was to be born at once, and to become the "deliverer from the
collision of that time." This view has been expanded especially by
_Ewald_. "False," so he says, "is every interpretation which does not
see that the Prophet is here speaking of the Messiah to be born, and
hence of Him to whom the land really belongs, and in thinking of whom
the Prophet's heart beats with joyful hope, chap. viii. 8, ix. 5, 6 (6,
7)." But not being able to realize that which can be seen only by
faith--a territory, in general, very inaccessible to modern exposition
of Scripture--he, in ver. 14, puts in the _real_ Present instead of the
_ideal_, and thinks that the Prophet imagined that the conception and
birth of the Messiah would take place at once. By [Hebrew: elmh] he
understands, like ourselves, a virgin; but such an one as is so at the
present moment only, but will soon afterwards cease to be so;--and in
supposing this, he overlooks the fact that the virgin is introduced as
being already with child, and that her bearing appears as present. In
ver. 15, the time when the boy knows &c., is, according to him, the
maturer juvenile age from ten to twenty years. It is during this that
the devastation of the land by the Assyrians is to take place, of which
[Pg 60] the Prophet treats more in detail afterwards in ver. 17 ff. But
opposed to this view is the circumstance that, even before the boy
enters upon this maturer age (ver. 16), hence in a few years after
this, the allied Damascus and Ephraim shall be desolated; so little are
these two kings able to conquer Jerusalem, and so certain is it that a
divine deliverance is in store for this country in the immediate
future. And, in every point of view, this explanation shows itself to
be untenable. The supposition that a _real_ Present is spoken of in
ver. 14 saddles upon the Prophet an absurd hallucination; and nothing
analogous to it can be referred to in the whole of the Old Testament.
According to statements of the Prophet in other passages, he sees yet
many things intervening between the Messianic time and his own;
according to chap. vi. 11-13, not only the entire carrying away of the
whole people, (and he cannot well consider the Assyrians as the
instruments of it, were it only for this reason, that he is always
consistent in the announcement that they should not succeed in the
capture of Jerusalem), but also a later second divine judgment.
According to chap. xi., the Messiah is to grow up as a twig from the
stem of Jesse completely cut down. This supposition of His appearance,
the complete decay of the Davidic dynasty, did not in any way exist in
the time of the Prophet. According to chap. xxxix., and other passages,
the Prophet recognised in Babylon the appearance of a new phase of the
world's power which would, at some future period, follow the steps of
the Assyrian power which existed at the time of the Prophet, and which
should execute upon Judah the judgment of the Lord. We pointed out
(Vol. I. p. 417 ff.) that in the Prophet Micah also, the contemporary
of Isaiah, there lies a long series of events between the Present and
the time when she who is bearing brings forth. _Farther_--In harmony
with all other Prophets, Isaiah too looks for the Messiah from the
house of David, with which, by the promise of Nathan in 2 Sam. vii.
salvation was indissolubly connected, and the high importance of which
for the weal and woe of the people appears also from the circumstance
of its being several times mentioned in our chapter. Hence it would be
a son of Ahaz only of whom we could here think; and then we should be
shut up to Hezekiah, his first-born. But in that case there arises the
difficulty which Luther already brought forward against the Jews: [Pg
61] "The Jews understand thereby Hezekiah. But the blind people, while
anxious to remedy their error, themselves manifest their laziness and
ignorance; for Hezekiah was born nine years before this prophecy was
uttered!"--"The eating of cream and honey" is, in this explanation,
altogether erroneously understood as a designation of the devastated
condition of the land. From our remarks, it sufficiently appears that
the expression "to refuse the evil," &c., cannot denote the maturer
juvenile age. And many additional points might, in like manner, be
urged.

2. Several interpreters do not indeed deny the reference to the
Messiah, but suppose that, _in the first instance_, the Prophet had in
view some occurrence of his own time. They assume that the Prophet,
while speaking of a boy of his own time, makes use, under the guidance
of divine providence, of expressions, which apply more to Christ, and
can, in an improper and inferior sense only, be true of this boy. This
opinion was advanced as early as in the time of Jerome, by some
anonymous author who, on that account, is severely censured by him:
"Some Judaizer from among us asserts that the Prophet had two sons,
Shearjashub and Immanuel. Immanuel too was, according to him, born by
the prophetess, the wife of the Prophet, and a type of the Saviour, our
Lord; so that the former son Shearjashub (which means 'remnant,'or
'converting') designates the Jewish people that have been left and
afterwards converted; while the second son Immanuel, 'with us is God,'
signifies the calling of the Gentiles after the Word became flesh and
dwelt among us." This explanation was defended by, among others
_Grotius_, _Richard Simon_, and _Clericus_; and then, in our century,
by _Olshausen_, who says: "The unity of the reference lies in the name
Immanuel; the son of Isaiah had the _name_ but Christ the _essence_. He
was the visible God whom the former only represented." In a modified
form, this view is held by _Lowth_, _Koppe_, and _von Meyer_, also.
According to them, the Prophet is indeed not supposed to speak of a
definite boy who was to be born in his time, but yet, to connect the
destinies of his land with the name and destinies of a boy whose
conception he, at the moment, imagines to be possible. "The most
obvious meaning which would present itself to Ahaz," says _von Meyer_,
"was this: If now a girl was to marry, to become [Pg 62] pregnant, and
to bear a child, she may call him 'God with us,'for God will be with
us at his time." But the prophecy is, after all, to have an ultimate
reference to Christ. "The prophecy," says _Lowth_, "is introduced in so
solemn a manner; the sign, after Ahaz had refused the call to fix upon
any thing from the whole territory of nature according to his own
choice, is so emphatically declared to be one selected and given by God
himself; the terms of the prophecy are so unique in their kind, and the
name of the child is so expressive; they comprehend in them so much
more than the circumstances of the birth of an ordinary child require,
or could even permit, that we may easily suppose, that in minds, which
were already prepared by the expectation of a great Saviour who was to
come forth from the house of David, they excited hopes which stretched
farther than any with which the present cause could inspire them,
especially if it was found that in the succeeding prophecy, published
immediately afterwards, this child was, under the name of Immanuel,
treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who else could
this be than the heir of the throne of David, under which character a
great, and even divine person had been promised?" The reasons for the
Messianic explanation are very well exhibited in these words of
_Lowth_; but he, as little as any other of these interpreters, has been
able to vindicate the assumption of a _double sense_. When more closely
examined, the supposition is a mere makeshift. On the one hand, they
could not make up their minds to give up the Messianic explanation,
and, along with it, the authority of the Apostle Matthew. But, on the
other hand, they were puzzled by the _sanctum artificium_ by which the
Prophet, or rather the Holy Spirit speaking through him, represents
Christ as being born even before His birth, places Him in the midst of
the life of the people, and makes Him accompany the nation through all
the stages of its existence. In truth, if the real, or even the nearest
fulfilment is sought for in the time of Ahaz, there is no reason
whatever for supposing a higher reference to Christ. The [Hebrew: elmh]
is then one who was a virgin, who had nothing in common with the mother
of Jesus, Mary, who remained a virgin even after her pregnancy. The
name Immanuel then refers to the help which God is to afford in the
present distress.

[Pg 63]

3. Many interpreters deny every reference to Christ. This
interpretation remained for a long time the exclusive property of the
Jews, until _J. E. Faber_ (in his remarks on _Harmar's_ observations on
the East, i. S. 281), tried to transplant it into the Christian
soil.[5] He was followed by the Roman Catholic, _Isenbiehl_ (_Neuer
Versuch ueber die Weissagung vom Immanuel_, 1778) who, in consequence of
it, was deposed from his theological professorship, and thrown into
gaol. The principal tenets of his work he had borrowed from the
lectures of _J. D. Michaelis_. In their views about the _Almah_, who is
to bear Immanuel, these interpreters are very much at variance.

(a) The more ancient Jews maintained that the _Almah_ was the wife of
Ahaz, and Immanuel, his son Hezekiah. According to the _Dialog. c.
Tryph._ 66, 68, 71, 77, this view prevailed among them as early as the
time of _Justin_. But they were refuted by _Jerome_, who showed that
Hezekiah must, at that time, have already been at least nine years old.
_Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_ then resorted to the hypothesis of a second
wife of Ahaz.

(b) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is some virgin who
cannot be definitely determined by us, who was present at the place
where the king and Isaiah were speaking to one another, and to whom the
Prophet points with his finger. This view was held by _Isenbiehl_,
_Steudel_ (in a Programme, Tuebingen, 1815), and others.

(c) According to the view of others, the _Almah_ is not a _real_ but
only an _ideal_ virgin. Thus _J. D. Michaelis_: "At the time when one,
who at this moment is still a virgin, can bear," &c. _Eichhorn_,
_Paulus_, _Staehelin_, and others. The sign is thus made to consist in a
mere poetical figure.

(d) A composition of the two views last mentioned is the view of
_Umbreit_. The virgin is, according to him, an actual virgin whom the
Prophet perceived among those surrounding him; but the pregnancy and
birth are imaginary [Pg 64] merely, and the virgin is to suggest to the
Prophet the idea of pregnancy. But this explanation would saddle the
Prophet with something indecent. _Farther_: It is not a birth possible
which is spoken of, but an actual birth. From chap. viii. 8, it
likewise appears that Immanuel is a real individual, and He one of
eminent dignity; and this passage is thus at once in strict opposition
to both of the explanations, viz. that of any ordinary virgin, and that
of the ideal virgin. It destroys also

(e) The explanation of _Meier_, who by the virgin understands the
people of Judah, and conceives of the pregnancy and birth likewise in a
poetical manner. The fact, the acknowledgment of which has led _Meier_
to get up this hypothesis, altogether unfounded, and undeserving of any
minute refutation, is this: "_The mother is, in the passage before us,
called a virgin, and yet is designated as being with child._ The words,
when understood physically and outwardly, contain a contradiction." But
this fact is rather in favour of the Messianic explanation.

(f) Others, farther, conjecture that the wife of the Prophet is meant
by the _Almah_. This view was advanced as early as by _Abenezra_ and
_Jarchi_. By the authority of _Gesenius_, this view became, for a time,
the prevailing one. Against it, the following arguments are decisive;
part of them being opposed to the other conjectures also. As [Hebrew:
elmh] designates "virgin" only, and never a young woman, and, far less,
an older woman, it is quite impossible that the wife of the Prophet,
the mother of Shearjashub could be so designated, inasmuch as the
latter was already old enough to be able to accompany his father.
Gesenius could not avoid acknowledging the weight of this argument, and
declared himself disposed to assume that the Prophet's former wife had
died, and that he had thereupon betrothed himself to a virgin.
_Olshausen_, _Maurer_, _Hendewerk_, and others, have followed him in
this. But this is a story entirely without foundation. In chap. viii.
13, the wife of the Prophet is called simply "the prophetess." Nor
could one well see how the Prophet could expect to be understood, if,
by the general expression: "the virgin" he wished to signify his
presumptive betrothed. _There_ [Pg 65] _is an entire absence of every
intimation whatsoever of a nearer relation of the Almah to the
Prophet_; and such an intimation could not by any means be wanting if
such a relation really existed. One would, in that case at least, be
obliged to suppose, as _Plueschke_ does, that the Prophet took his
betrothed with him, and pointed to her with his finger,--a supposition
which too plainly exhibits the sign of embarrassment, just as is the
case with the remark of _Hendewerk_: "Only that, in that case, we must
also suppose that his second wife was sufficiently known at court even
then, when she was his betrothed only, although her relation to Isaiah
might be unknown; so that, for this very reason, we could not think of
a frustration of the sign on the part of the king." _Hitzig_ remarks:
"The supposition of a former wife of the Prophet is altogether
destitute of any foundation." He then, however, falls back upon the
hypothesis which _Gesenius_ himself admitted to be untenable, that
[Hebrew: elmh], "virgin" might not only denote a young woman, but
sometimes also an older woman. Not even the semblance of a proof can be
advanced in support of this. It is just the juvenile age which forms
the fundamental signification of the word. In the wife of the Prophet
we can the less think of such a juvenile age, that he himself had
already exercised his prophetic office for about twenty years. _Hitzig_
has indeed altogether declined to lead any such proof. A son of the
Prophet, as, in general, every subject except the Messiah, is excluded
by the circumstance that in chap viii. 8, Canaan is called the land of
Immanuel.--_Farther_,--In all these suppositions, [Hebrew: avt] is
understood in an inadmissible signification. It can here denote a fact
only, whereby those who were really susceptible were made decidedly
certain of the impending deliverance. This appears clearly enough from
the relation of this sign to that which Ahaz had before refused,
according to which the difference must not be too great, and must not
refer to the substance. To this may be added the solemn tone which
induces us to expect something grand and important. A mere poetical
image, such as would be before us according to the hypothesis of the
ideal virgin, or of the real virgin and the ideal birth, does [Pg 66]
surely not come up to the demand which in this context must be made in
reference to this _sign_. And if the Prophet had announced so solemnly,
and in words so sublime, the birth _of his own_ child, he would have
made himself ridiculous. _Farther_,--How then did the Prophet know that
after nine months a child would be born to him, or, if the pregnancy be
considered as having already commenced, how did he know that just a son
would be born to him? That is a question to which most of these
Rationalistic interpreters take good care not to give any reply.
_Plueschke_, indeed, is of opinion that, upon a bold conjecture, the
Prophet had ventured this statement. But in that case it might easily
have fared with him as in that well known story in _Worms_,
(_Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 664 ff.), and his whole
authority would have been forfeited if his conjecture had proved false.
And this argument holds true in reference to those also who do not
share in the Rationalistic view, of Prophetism. Predictions of such a
kind may belong to the territory of foretelling, but not to that of
Prophecy.



[Footnote 1: _Meyer_, _Blaetter fuer hoehere Wahrheit_, iii. S. 101.]

[Footnote 2: _Caspari_ very justly remarks: "Nothing can be clearer
than that 2 Chron. xxviii. 5 ff. comes in between 2 Kings xvi. 5 a.
b.; that the author of the books of the Kings gives a report of the
beginning and end; the author of the Chronicles, of the middle of the
campaign." But we cannot agree with _Caspari_ in his transferring to
Idumea the victory of Rezin. According to Is. vii. 2, Aram was encamped
in Ephraim. According to 2 Kings xvi. 5, _both_ of the kings came up to
Jerusalem and besieged her. The expedition against Elath, 2 Kings xvi.
6, was secondary, and by the way only.]

[Footnote 3: The words: "In threescore and five years more, Ephraim
shall be broken and be no more a people," have, by rationalistic
critics, without and against all external arguments, been declared to
be _spurious_. The reasons which serve as fig leaves to cover their
doctrinal tendency are the following: (1) "The time does not agree,
inasmuch as the ten tribes sustained their first defeat very soon
afterwards by Tiglath-pilezer; the second, nineteen to twenty-one years
later, by Shalmanezer, who, in the sixth year of Hezekiah, carried the
inhabitants of the kingdom of the ten tribes away into captivity." But
the question here is _the complete destruction of the national
existence of Israel_; and that took place only under King Manasseh,
when, by Azarhaddon, new Gentile colonists were brought into the land,
who expelled from it the old inhabitants who had again gathered
themselves together; comp. 2 Kings xvii. 24 with Ezra iv. 2, 10. From
that time, Israel amalgamated more and more with Judah, and never
returned to a national independence. This happened exactly sixty-five
years after the announcement by the Prophet. Chap. vi. 12 compared with
ver. 13 shows how little the desolation of the country (ver. 16) is
connected with the breaking up as a nation. It is, moreover, at least
as much the interest of those who assert the spuriousness, as it is
ours to remove the chronological difficulties; for how could it be
imagined that the supposed author should have introduced a false
chronological statement? His object surely could be none other than to
procure authority for the Prophet, by putting into his mouth a prophecy
so very evidently and manifestly fulfilled. (2) "The words contain an
unsuitable consolation, as Ahaz could not be benefitted by so late a
destruction of his enemy." But, immediately afterwards, he is even
expressly assured that this enemy will not be able to do him any
immediate harm. _Chrysostom_ remarks: "The king, hearing that they
should be destroyed after sixty-five years, might say within himself:
What about that? Although they be _then_ overthrown, of what use is it
to us, if they now take us? In order that the king might not speak
thus, the Prophet says: Be of good cheer even as to the present. At
that time they shall be _utterly_ destroyed; but even now, they shall
not have any more than their own land, for 'the head of Ephraim,'" &c.
The preceding distinct announcement of the last end of his enemy,
however, was exceedingly well fitted to break in Ahaz the opinion of
his invincibility, and to strengthen his faith in the God of Israel,
who, with a firm hand, directs the destinies of nations, and, no less,
the faith in _His servant_ whom He raises to be privy to His
secrets.--(3.) "The use of numbers so exact is against the analogy of
all oracles." But immediately afterwards (ver. 15 comp. with chap.
viii. 4), the time of the defeat is as exactly fixed, although not in
ciphers. In chap. xx. Isaiah announces that after three years the
Egyptians and Ethiopians shall sustain a defeat; in chap. xxiii. 15,
that Tyre would flourish anew seventy years after its fall; in chap.
xxxviii. 5, he announces to Hezekiah, sick unto death, that God would
add fifteen years to his life. According to Jeremiah, the Babylonish
captivity is to last seventy years; and the fulfilment has shown that
this date is not to be understood as a round number. And farther, the
year-weeks in Daniel.--But in opposition to this view, and positively
in favour of the genuineness, are the following arguments: The words
have not only, as is conceded by _Ewald_, "a true old-Hebrew
colouring," but in their emphatic and solemn brevity ("he shall be
broken from [being] a people") they do not at all bear the character of
an interpolation. If we blot them out, then the Prophet says less than
from present circumstances, from ver. 4, where he calls the kings "ends
of smoking firebrands," in opposition to ver. 6, and from the analogy
of ver. 9, where the threatening is much more severe, he was bound to
say. His saying merely that they would not get any more, was not
sufficient. He could make the right impression only when he reduced
that declaration to its foundation--_i.e._, their own destruction and
overthrow. Ver. 16, too, would go far beyond what would be announced
here, if we remove this clause. He announces destruction to the kings
themselves. Finally, the symmetrical parallelism would be destroyed by
striking out these words. The words: "If ye believe not, ye shall not
be established," would, in that case, be without the parallel members.
They are connected with the clause under discussion so much the rather,
that in them it is not specially Judah's deliverance from the Syrians
and Ephraimites that is looked at, but its salvation in general.]

[Footnote 4: By a minute and trifling exposition of what is to be
understood as a whole, and comprehensively, many misunderstandings have
been introduced into this passage. The defeat of Asshur should take
place very soon, but the devastation of the country had been so
complete that a longer time would be required before the fields would
be again _completely_ cultivated.]

[Footnote 5: _Gesenius_ mentions _Pellicanus_ as the first defender of
the Non-Messianic interpretation. But this statement seems to have
proceeded from a cursory view of an annotation by _Cramer_ on _Richard
Simon's Kritische Schriften_ i. S. 441, where the words: "this
historical interpretation _Pellicanus_ too has preferred," do not refer
to Isaiah but to Daniel. Nor is there any more ground for the
intimation that _Theodorus_ a Mopsuesta rejected the Messianic
interpretation.]




                    THE PROPHECY, CHAP. VIII. 23-IX. 6.
                            (Chap. ix. 1-7.)
                        UNTO US A CHILD IS BORN.


In the view of the Assyrian catastrophe, the Prophet is anxious to
bring it home to the consciences of the people that, by their own
guilt, they have brought down upon themselves this calamity, and, at
the same time, to prevent them from despairing. Hence it is that, soon
after the prophecy in chap. vii., he reverts once more to the subject
of it. The circumstances in chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7) are identical with
those in chap. vii. Judah is hard pressed by Ephraim and Aram. Still,
some time will elapse before the destruction of [Pg 67] their
territories. The term in chap. vii. 16: "Before the boy shall know to
refuse the evil and choose the good," and in chap. viii. 4: "Before the
boy shall know to cry, My father and my mother," is quite the same.
This is the less to be doubted when it is kept in mind that, in the
former passage, evil and good must be taken in a physical sense. The
sense for the difference of food is, in a child, developed at nearly
the same time as the ability for speaking. If it had not been the
intention of the Prophet to designate one and the same period, _he
ought to have fixed more distinctly the limits between the two
termini._ It might, indeed, from chap. viii. 3, appear as if at least
the nine months must intervene between the two prophecies of the
conception of the son of the Prophet, and his birth. As, however, it
cannot be denied that there is a connection between the giving of the
name, and the drawing up of the document in vers. 1 and 2, we should be
obliged to suppose that, in reference to the first two futures with
_Vav convers._ the same rule applies as in reference to [Hebrew: vicr],
in Gen. ii. 19. The progress lies first in [Hebrew: vtld]; the event
falling into that time is the birth.

Chap. viii. 1-ix. 6 (7), forms the necessary _supplement_ to chap.
vii., the germ of which is contained already in chap. vii. 21, 22. The
Prophet saw, by the light of the Spirit of God, that the fear of Aram
and Ephraim was unfounded; the enemy truly dangerous is Asshur, _i.e._,
_the whole world's power first represented by Asshur._ For the King of
Asshur is, so to say, an ideal person to the Prophet. The different
phases of the world's powers are intimated as early as chap. viii. 9,
where the Prophet addresses the "nations," and "all the far-off
countries;" and, at a later period, he received disclosures regarding
all the single phases of the world's power which began its course with
Asshur. With this the Prophet had only threatened in chap. vii.; here,
however, he is pre-eminently employed with it, _exhorting_,
_comforting_, _promising_, so that thus the two sections form one whole
in two divisions. _His main object is to induce his people, in the
impending oppression by the world's power, to direct their eyes
steadily to their heavenly Redeemer, who, in due time, will bring peace
instead of strife, salvation and prosperity instead of misery, dominion
instead of oppression._ As in chap. vii. 14, the [Pg 68] picture of
Immanuel is placed before the eyes of the people desponding on account
of Aram and Ephraim, so here the care, anxiety, and fear in the view of
Asshur are overcome by pointing to the declaration: "Unto us a child is
born, unto us a son is given." It is of great importance for the right
understanding of the Messianic announcement in chap. viii. 23, ix. 6,
that the historical circumstances of the whole section, and its
tendency be clearly understood. As, in general, the Messianic
announcement under the Old Testament bears a one-sided character, so,
for the _present occasion_, those aspects only of the picture of the
Saviour were required which were fitted effectually to meet the
despondency of the people in the view, and under the pressure of the
world's power.

After these preliminary remarks, we must enter still more in detail
upon the arrangement and construction of the section before us.

The Prophet receives, first, the commission to write down, like a
judicial document, the announcement of the speedy destruction of the
present enemies, and to get it confirmed by trust-worthy witnesses,
chap. viii. 1, 2. He then, farther, receives the commission to give, to
a son that would be born to him about the same time, a name expressive
of the speedy destruction of the enemies, vers. 3, 4. Thus far the
announcement of the deliverance from Aram and Ephraim. There then
follows, from vers. 5-8, an announcement of the misery which is to be
inflicted by _Asshur_, of whom Ahaz and the unbelieving portion of the
people expected nothing but deliverance. _Up to this, there is a
recapitulation only, and a confirmation of chap. vii._ But this misery
is not to last for ever, is not to end in destruction. In vers. 9, 10,
the Prophet addresses exultingly the hostile nations, and announces to
them, what had already been gently hinted at at the close of ver. 8,
that their attempts to put an end to the covenant-people would be vain,
and would lead to their own destruction. The splendour of Asshur must
_fade_ before the bright image of Immanuel, which calls to the people:
"Be ye of good cheer, I have overcome the world." _Calvin_ strikingly
remarks: "The Prophet may be conceived of, as it were, standing on a
watch tower, whence he beholds the defeat of the people, and the
victorious Assyrians insolently exulting. [Pg 69] But by the name and
view of Christ he recovers himself, forgets all the evils as if he had
suffered nothing, and, freed from all misery, he rises against the
enemies whom the Lord would immediately destroy." The Prophet then
interrupts the announcement of deliverance, and exhibits the subjective
conditions upon which the bestowal of deliverance, or rather the
_partaking_ in it, depends, along with the announcement of the fearful
misery which would befal them in case these conditions were not
complied with. But, so he continues in vers. 11-16, he who is to
partake of the deliverance which the Lord has destined for His people,
must in firm faith expect it from Him, and thereby inwardly separate
himself from the unbelieving mass, who, at every appearance of danger,
tremble and give up all for lost. He who stands as ill as that mass in
the trial inflicted by the Lord; he to whom the danger becomes an
occasion for manifesting the unbelief of his heart;--he indeed will
perish in it. At the close, the prophet is emphatically admonished to
impress this great and important truth upon the minds of the
susceptible ones. In ver. 17: "And I waited upon the Lord," &c., the
Prophet reports what effect was produced upon him by this revelation
from the Lord,--thereby teaching indirectly what effect it ought to
produce upon all. In ver. 18, the Prophet directs the desponding people
to the example of himself who, according to ver. 17, is joyful in his
faith, and to the names of his sons which announced deliverance.
Deliverance and comfort are to be sought from the God of Israel only.
Vain, therefore,--this he brings out, vers. 19-22--are all other means
by which people without faith seek to procure help to themselves. They
should return to God's holy Law which, in Deut. xviii. 14, ff. commands
to seek disclosures as regards the future, and comfort from His
servants the Prophets only, and which itself abounds in comfort and
promise. If such be not done, misery without any deliverance, despair
without any comfort, are the unavoidable consequences. From ver. 23,
the Prophet continues the interrupted announcement of deliverance. That
which, in the preceding verses, he had threatened in the case of
apostacy from God's Word, and of unbelief, viz., _darkness_, _i.e._,
the absence of deliverance, will, as the Prophet, according to vers.
21, 22, foresees, really befal them in future, as [Pg 70] the people
will not fulfil the conditions held forth in vers. 16 and 20, as they
will not speak: "To the Law and to the testimony," as they will not in
faith lay hold of the promise, and trust in the Lord. The calamity
having, in the preceding verses, been represented as _darkness_, the
deliverance which, by the grace of the Lord, is to be bestowed upon the
people (for the Lord indeed chastises His people on account of their
unbelief, but does not give them up to death), is now represented as a
great _light_ which dispels the darkness. It shines most clearly just
where the darkness had been greatest--in that part of the country
which, being outwardly and inwardly given up to heathenism, seemed
scarcely still to belong to the land of the Lord, viz., the country
lying around the lake of Gennesareth. The people are filled with joy on
account of the deliverance granted to them by the Lord,--their
deliverance from the yoke of their oppressors, from the bondage of the
world which now comes to an end. As the bestower of such deliverance,
the Prophet beholds a divine child who, having obtained dominion, will
exercise it with the skill of the God-man; who will, with fatherly
love, in all eternity care for His people and create peace to them; who
will, at the same time, infinitely extend His dominion, the kingdom of
David, not by means of the force of arms, but by means of right and
righteousness, the exercise of which will attract the nations to Him;
so that with the increase of dominion, the increase of peace goes hand
in hand. The guarantee that these glorious results shall really take
place is the zeal of the Lord, and it is this to which the Prophet
points at the close.


                           * * * * * * * * * *




Chap. viii. 23 (ix. 1). "_For not is darkness to the land, to which is
distress; in the former time he has brought disgrace upon the land of
Zebulun and the hind of Naphtali, and in the after-time he brings it to
honour, the region on the sea, the other side of the Jordan, Galilee of
the Gentiles._"

[Hebrew: ki] stands in its ordinary signification, "for." Allow not
yourselves to be turned away by anything from trusting in the God of
Israel; hold fast by His word alone, and by His servants,--such was the
fundamental thought of the whole preceding section. It meets us last in
ver. 20, in the exhortation: [Pg 71] "To the Law and to the testimony!"
in so far as this is rich in consolation and promise. The Prophet,
after having, in the preceding verses, described the misery which will
befal those who do not follow this exhortation, supports and
establishes it by referring to the _help of the Lord_ already alluded
to in vers. 9 and 10, and to the _light of His grace_ which He will
cause to shine into the darkness of the people,--a darkness produced by
their unbelief and apostacy; and this light shall be brightest where
the darkness was greatest. All the attempts at connecting this [Hebrew:
ki] with the verse immediately preceding instead of referring it to the
main contents of the preceding section, have proved futile. [Hebrew:
ki] can neither mean "nevertheless," nor "yea;" and the strange
assertion that it is almost without any meaning at all cannot derive
any support from Isaiah xv. 1: "The _burden_ of Moab, _for_ in the
night the city of Moab is laid waste;" for only in that case is
[Hebrew: ki] without any meaning at all, if [Hebrew: mwa] be falsely
interpreted.--Ver. 22, where the phrase [Hebrew: mevP Cvqh] "darkness
of distress" is equivalent to "darkness which consists in distress"
(compare also: "behold trouble and darkness" in the same verse), shows
that [Hebrew: mveP] and [Hebrew: mvcq] are substantially of the same
meaning.--Our verse forms an antithesis to ver. 22; the latter verse
described the darkness brought on by the guilt of the people; the verse
under consideration describes, in contrast to it, the _removal_ of it
called forth by the grace of the Lord.--[Hebrew: la] may either be
connected with the noun, or it may be explained: not is darkness. It
cannot be objected to the latter view that, in that case, [Hebrew: aiN]
should rather have stood; while the analogy of the phrase: "Not didst
thou increase the joy," in chap. ix. 2 (3), seems to be in favour of
it. Here we have the negative, the ceasing of darkness; in chap. ix. 1
(2) the positive, the appearance of light. The suffix, in [Hebrew: lh]
refers, just as the suffix, in [Hebrew: bh] in ver. 21, to the omitted
[Hebrew: arC].--The [Hebrew: k] in [Hebrew: ket] is, by many
interpreters, asserted to stand in the signification of [Hebrew: kawr]:
"Just as the former time has brought disgrace," &c. But as it cannot be
proved that [Hebrew: k] has ever the meaning, "just as;" and as, on the
other hand, [Hebrew: ket] frequently occurs in the signification, "at
the time" (compare my remarks on Numb. xxiii. 13 in my work on Balaam),
we shall be obliged to take, here too, the [Hebrew: k] as a temporal
particle, and to supply, as the subject, Jehovah, who [Pg 72] always
stands before the Prophet's mind, and is often not mentioned when the
matter itself excludes another subject. Moreover, it is especially in
favour of this view that, in vers. 3 (4), the Lord himself is expressly
addressed.--As regards [Hebrew: aHrvN], either [Hebrew: ket] may be
supplied,--and this is simplest and most natural--or it may be taken as
an Accusative, "for the whole after-time."--[Hebrew: hql] means
properly to "make light," then "to make contemptible," "to cover with
disgrace," and [Hebrew: hkbid] properly then, "to make heavy," "to
honour,"--a signification which indeed is peculiar to _Piel_, but in
which the _Hiphil_, too, occurs in Jer. xxx. 19; the two verbs thus
form an antithesis. The [Hebrew: h] _locale_ in [Hebrew: arch] (the
word does not occur in Isaiah with the [Hebrew: h] _paragog._) shews
that a certain modification of the verbal notion must be assumed: "to
bring disgrace and honour." [Hebrew: arch] thus would mean "towards
the land." The scene of the disgrace and honour, which at first was
designated in general only, is afterwards _extended_. First, the land
of Zebulun and Naphtali only is mentioned, because it was upon it
that the disgrace had pre-eminently fallen, and it was, therefore,
pre-eminently to be brought to honour; then the whole territory along
the sea on both sides of it.--[Hebrew: iM] can, in this context
which serves for a more definite qualification, mean the sea of
Gennesareth only ([Hebrew: iM knrt] Numb. xxxiv. 11, and other
passages), just as, in Matt. iv. 13, the designation of Capernaum as
[Greek: he parathalassia] receives its definite meaning from the
context.--[Hebrew: drK] occurs elsewhere also in the signification of
_versus_, _e.g._, Ezek. viii. 5, xl. 20, 46; it will be necessary to
supply after it [Hebrew: arC], just as in the case of the [Hebrew: ebr
hirdN] following. It is without any instance that [Hebrew: drK] "way"
should stand for "region," "country." The region on the sea is then
divided into its two parts [Hebrew: ebr hirdN], [Greek: peran tou
Iordanou], the land on the east bank of Jordan, and Galilee. The latter
answers to the land of Zebulun and Naphtali; for the territory of these
two tribes occupied the centre and principal part of Galilee. In
opposition to the established _usus loquendi_, many would understand
[Hebrew: ebr hirdN] as meaning the land "on the side," _i.e._, this
side "of the Jordan," proceeding upon the supposition that the local
designations must, from beginning to end, be congruous. Opposed to it
is also the circumstance that, in 2 Kings, xv. 29, the most eastward
and most northward countries, Peraea and Galilee are connected. [Pg 73]
In that passage the single places are mentioned which Tiglath-pilezer
took; then, the whole districts, "Gilead and Galilee, the whole land of
Naphtali." By the latter words, that part of Galilee is made especially
prominent upon which the catastrophe fell most severely and completely.
In the phrase, "Galilee of the Gentiles," Galilee is a geographical
designation which was already current at the time of the Prophet. There
is no reason for fixing the extent of ancient Galilee differently from
that of the more modern Galilee,--for assigning to it a more limited
extent. We are told in 1 Kings ix. 11, that the twenty cities which
Solomon gave to Hiram lay in the land of _Galil_, but not that the
country was limited to them. The qualification, "of the Gentiles," is
nowhere else met with in the Old Testament; it is peculiar to the
Prophet. It serves as a hint to point out in what the disgrace of
Galilee and Peraea consisted. This _Theodoret_ also saw. He says: "He
calls it 'Galilee of the Gentiles'because it was inhabited by other
tribes along with the Jews; for this reason, he says also of the
inhabitants of those countries, that they were walking in darkness, and
speaks of the inhabitants of that land as living in the shadow and land
of death, and promises the brightness of heavenly light." It is of no
small importance to observe that Isaiah does not designate Galilee
according to what it was at the time when this prophecy was uttered,
_but according to what it was to become in future_. The distress by the
Gentiles appears in chap. vii. and viii. everywhere as a _future one_.
At the time when the Prophet prophesied, the Jewish territory still
existed in its integrity. In vers. 4, and 5-7, he announces Asshur's
inroad into the land of Israel as a _future one_; in the present
moment, it was the kingdom of the ten tribes in connection with Aram
which attacked and threatened Judea. The superior power of the world
which, according to the clear foresight of the Prophet, was
threatening, could not but be sensibly felt in the North and East. For
these formed the border parts against the Asiatic world's power; it was
from that quarter that its invasions commonly took place; and it was to
be expected that there, in the first instance, the Gentiles would
establish themselves, just as, in former times, they had maintained
themselves longest there; comp. Judges i. 30-38; _Keil_ on 1 Kings ix.
11. But very soon after this, [Pg 74] the name "Galilee of the
Gentiles" ceased to be one merely prophetical; Tiglathpilezer carried
the inhabitants of Galilee and Gilead into exile, 2 Kings xv. 29. _At a
later period_, when the Greek empire "peopled Palestine, in the most
attractive places, with new cities, restored many which, in consequence
of the destructive wars, had fallen into decay, filled all of them,
more or less, with Greek customs and institutions, and, along with the
newly-opened extensive commerce and traffic, everywhere spread Greek
manners also," this change was chiefly limited to Galilee and Peraea;
Judea remained free from it; comp. _Ewald_, _Geschichte Israels_, iii.
2 S. 264 ff. In 1 Maccab. v. Galaaditis and Galilee appear as those
parts of the country where the existence of the Jews is almost
hopelessly endangered by the Gentiles living in the midst of, and mixed
up with them. What is implied in "Galilee of the Gentiles" may be
learned from that chapter, where even the _expression_ reverts in ver.
15. With external dependence upon the Gentiles, however, the spiritual
dependence went hand in hand. These parts of the country could the less
oppose any great resistance to the influences of heathendom, that they
were separated, by a considerable distance, from the religious centre
of the nation--the temple and _metropolis_, in which the higher
Israelitish life was concentrated. A consequence of this degeneracy was
the contempt in which the Galileans were held at the time of Christ,
John i. 47, vii. 52; Matt. xxvi. 69.--But in what consisted the
_honour_ or the _glorification_ which Galilee, along with Peraea, was
to obtain in the after-time? Chap. ix. 5 (6), where the deliverance and
salvation announced in the preceding verses are connected with the
person of the _Redeemer_, show that we must not seek for it in any
other than that of the Messianic time. Our Lord spent the greater part
of His public life in the neighbourhood of the lake of Gennesareth; it
was there that Capernaum--His ordinary residence--was situated, Matt.
ix. 1. From Galilee were most of His disciples. In Galilee He performed
many _miracles_; and it was there that the preaching of the Gospel
found much entrance, so that even the name of the Galileans passed over
in the first centuries to the Christians. _Theodoret_ strikingly
remarks: "Galilee was the native country of the holy Apostles; there
the [Pg 75] Lord performed most of His miracles; there He cleansed the
leper; there He gave back to the centurion his servant sound; there He
removed the fever from Peter's wife's mother; there He brought back to
life the daughter of Jairus who was dead; there He multiplied the
loaves; there He changed the water into wine." Very aptly has
_Gesenius_ compared Micah v. 1 (2). Just as in that passage the birth
of the Messiah is to be for the honour of the small, unimportant
Bethlehem, so here Galilee, which hitherto was covered with disgrace,
which was reproached by the Jews, that there no prophet had ever risen,
is to be brought to honour, and to be glorified by the appearance of
the Messiah. It was from the passage under review that the opinion of
the Jews was derived, that the Messiah would appear in the land of
Galilee. Comp. _Sohar_, p. 1. fol. 119 ed. Amstelod.; fol. 74 ed.
Solisbae: [Hebrew: baret dglil itgli mlka mwita]. "King Messiah will
reveal himself in the land of Galilee." But we must beware of putting
prophecy and fulfilment into a merely accidental outward relation, of
changing the former into a mere foretelling, and of supposing, in
reference to the latter, that, unless the letter of the prophecy had
existed, Jesus might as well have made Judea the exclusive scene of His
ministry. Both prophecy and history are overruled by a higher idea, by
the truth absolutely valid in reference to the Church of the Lord, that
where the distress is greatest, help is nearest. If it was established
that the misery of the covenant-people, both outward and spiritual, was
especially concentrated in Galilee, then it is also sure that He who
was sent to the lost sheep of Israel must devote His principal care
just to that part of the country. The prophecy is not exhausted by the
one fulfilment; and the fulfilment is a new prophecy. Wheresoever in
the Church we perceive a new Galilee of the Gentiles, we may, upon the
ground of this passage, confidently hope that the saving activity of
the Lord will gloriously display itself.




Chap. ix. 1 (2). "_The people that walk in darkness see a great light,
they that dwell in the land of the shadow of death, upon them light
ariseth._"

"The people" are the inhabitants of the countries mentioned in the
preceding verse; but they are not viewed in contrast to, and exclusive
of the other members of the covenant-people,--for [Pg 76] according to
chap. viii. 22, darkness is to cover the whole of it--but only as that
portion which comes chiefly into consideration. _Light_ is, in the
symbolical language of Scripture, salvation. That in which the
_salvation_ here consists cannot be determined from the words
themselves, but must follow from the context. It will not be possible
to deny that, according to it, the darkness consists, in the first
instance, in the oppression by the Gentiles, and, hence, salvation
consists in the _deliverance_ from this oppression, and in being raised
to the dominion of the world; and in ver. 2 (3) ff., we have, indeed,
the farther displaying of the light, or deliverance. But it will be as
little possible to deny that the sad companion of outward oppression by
the Gentile world is the _spiritual_ misery of the inward dependence
upon it. _Farther_,--It is as certain that the elevation of the
covenant-people to the dominion of the world cannot take place all on a
sudden, and without any farther ceremony, inasmuch as, according to a
fundamental view of the Old Testament, all outward deliverance appears
as depending upon conversion and regeneration. "Thou returnest," so we
read in Deut. xxx. 2, 3, "to the Lord thy God, and the Lord thy God
turneth to thy captivity." And in the same chapter, vers. 6, 7: "The
Lord thy God circumciseth thy heart, and _then_ the Lord thy God
putteth all these curses upon thine enemies." Before Gideon is called
to be the deliverer of the people from Midian, the Prophet must first
hold up their sin to the people, Judg. vi. 8 ff., and Gideon does not
begin his work with a struggle against the outward enemies, but must,
first of all, as Jerubbabel, declare war against sin. All the
prosperous periods in the people's history are, at the same time,
periods of spiritual revival. We need only think of David, Jehoshaphat,
and Hezekiah. Outward deliverance always presents itself in history as
an _addition_ only which is bestowed upon those seeking after the
kingdom of God. Without the inward foundation, the bestowal of the
outward blessing would be only a mockery, inasmuch as the holy God
could not but immediately take away again what He had given. But the
circumstance that it is the _outward_ salvation, the deliverance from
the heathen servitude, the elevation of the people of God to the
dominion of the world, as in Christ it so gloriously took [Pg 77]
place, which are here, in the first instance, looked at, is easily
accounted for from the historical cause of this prophetic discourse
which, _in the first instance, is directed against the fears of the
destruction of the kingdom of God by the world's power_. Ps. xxiii. 4;
"Yea, though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death, I fear
no evil; for thou art with me, thy rod and thy staff they comfort me,"
must so much the more he considered as the fundamental passage of the
verse under consideration, that the Psalm, too, refers to the whole
Christian Church. It was in the appearance of Christ, and the salvation
brought through Him, in the midst of the deepest misery, that this
Psalm found its most glorious confirmation.--[Hebrew: clmvt], "darkness
of death," is the darkness which prevails in death or in Sheol. Such
compositions commonly occur in proper names only, not in appellatives;
and hence, by "the land of the darkness (shadow) of death," hell is to
be understood. But darkness of hell is, by way of a shortened
comparison, not unfrequently used for designating the deepest darkness.
The point of comparison is here furnished by the first member of the
verse. Parallel is Ps. lxxxviii. 4 ff., where Israel laments that the
Lord had thrust it down into dark hell. The Preterite tense of the
verbs in our verse is to be explained from the prophetical view which
converts the Future into the Present. How little soever modern exegesis
can realise this seeing by, and in faith, and how much soever it is
everywhere disposed to introduce the _real_ Present instead of the
_ideal_, yet even _Ewald_ is compelled to remark on the passage under
consideration: "The Prophet, as if he were describing something which
in his mind he had seen as certain long ago, here represents everything
in the past, and scarcely makes an exception of this in the new start
which he takes in the middle." At the time when the Prophet uttered
this Prophecy, even the _darkness_ still belonged to the future. As yet
the world's power had not gained the ascendancy over Israel; but here
the light has already dispelled the darkness.

It now merely remains for us to view more particularly the quotation of
these two verses in Matt. iv. 12-17. [Greek: Akousas de]--thus the
section begins--[Greek: hoti Ioannes paredothe, anechoresen eis ten
Galilaian.] Since, in these words, we are told that Jesus, after having
received the intelligence of the imprisonment of [Pg 78] John, withdrew
into Galilee, we cannot for a moment think of His having sought in
Galilee, safety from Herod; for Galilee just belonged to Herod, and
Judea afforded security against him. The verb [Greek: anachorein]
denotes, on the contrary, the withdrawing into the _angulus terrae_
Galilee, as contrasted with the civil and ecclesiastical centre. The
_time_ of the beginning of Christ's preaching (His ministry hitherto
had been merely a kind of prelude) was determined by the imprisonment
of John, as certainly as, according to the prophecy of the Old
Testament, the territories of the activity of both were immediately
bordering upon one another, and by that very circumstance _the place_,
too, was indirectly determined; for it was fixed by the prophecy under
consideration that Galilee was to be the scene of the chief ministry of
Christ. If, then, the time for the beginning of the ministry had come,
He must also depart into Galilee. The connection, therefore, is this:
After he had received the intelligence of the imprisonment of John--in
which the call to Him for the beginning of His ministry was implied--He
departed into Galilee, and especially to Capernaum, vers. 12, 13; for
it was this part of the country which, by the prophecy, was fixed as
the main scene of His Messianic activity, vers. 14-16. It was there,
therefore, that He continued the preaching of John, ver. 17.--[Greek:
Kai katalipon ten Nazaret]--it is said in ver. 13--[Greek: elthon
katokesen eis Kapernaoum ten parathalassian, en horiois Zaboulon kai
Nephthaleim.] Christ had hitherto had His settled abode at Nazareth,
and thence undertook His wanderings. The immediate reason why He did
not remain there is not stated by Matthew; but we learn it from Luke
and John. In accordance with his object, Matthew takes cognizance of
this one circumstance only, that, according to the prophecy of the Old
Testament, Capernaum was very specially fitted for being the residence
of Christ. The town was situated on the western shore of the Lake of
Gennesareth. Quite in opposition to his custom elsewhere, Matthew
describes the situation of the town 80 minutely, because this knowledge
served to afford a better insight into the fulfilment of the prophecy
of the Old Testament. The designation [Greek: ten parathalassian]
stands in reference to [Greek: hodon thalasses], in ver. 15. [Greek: En
horiois], &c., may either mean: "In the borders of Zebulun and
Naphtali," _i. e._ in that place where [Pg 79] the borders of both the
countries meet,--or [Greek: ta horia] may, according to the analogy of
the Hebrew [Hebrew: gbvliM], denote the borders in the sense of
"territory," as in Matt. ii. 16. From a comparison of [Greek: ge
Zaboulon kai Nephthaleim] of the prophecy in ver. 15, to which the
words stand in direct reference, it follows that the latter view is the
correct one. Whether Capernaum lay just on the borders between the two
countries was of no consequence to the prophecy, and hence was of none
to Matthew.--The phrase [Greek: hina plerothe] does not, according to
the very sound remark of _De Wette_, point to the intention, but to the
objective aim. The question, however, is to what the [Greek: hina
plerothe] is to be referred,--whether merely to that which immediately
precedes, viz., the change of residence from Nazareth to Capernaum, or,
at the same time to [Greek: anechoresen eis ten Galilaian]. The latter
is alone correct. The prophecy which the Evangelist has in view
referred mainly to Galilee, or the territory of Zebulun and Naphtali in
general; but, according to the express remark of the Evangelist,
Nazareth itself was likewise situated in Galilee. The advantage which
Capernaum had over it was this only, that in Capernaum the [Greek:
hodon thalasses] of the prophecy was found again, and that, therefore,
thence the [Greek: peran tou Iordanou] of the prophecy also could be
better realized, inasmuch as across the lake there was an easy
communication from that place with the country beyond Jordan. The
connection is hence this: After the imprisonment of the Baptist, Jesus,
in order to enter upon His ministry, went to Galilee, and especially to
Capernaum, which was situated on the lake, in order that thus the
prophecy of Isaiah as to the glorification of Galilee, and of the
region on the lake, might be fulfilled.--Matthew has abridged the
passage. From chap. viii. 23 (ix. 1) he has taken the designation of
the part of the country, in order that the agreement of fulfilment and
prophecy might become visible. The words from [Greek: ge--ton ethnon]
may either be regarded as a fragment taken out of its connection,
so that they are viewed as a quotation, and as forming a period by
themselves (this, from a comparison of the original, seems most
natural);--or we may also suppose, that the Evangelist, having
broken-up the connection with the preceding, puts these words into a
new connection, so that, along with the [Greek: ho laos], which has
become an apposition, they form [Pg 80] the subject of the following
sentence. At all events, [Greek: hodon] takes here the place of the
adverb, although it may not be possible to adduce instances and proofs
altogether analogous from the Greek _usus loquendi_.--The confidence
with which Matthew explains chap. viii. 23, and ix. 1 of Christ can be
accounted for only from the circumstance that he recognized Christ as
He who in chap. ix. 5, 6, (6, 7) is described as the author of all the
blessings designated in the preceding verses. It was therefore
altogether erroneous in _Gesenius_ to assert that there was the less
reason for holding the Messianic explanation of chap. ix. 5, 6, as
there was no testimony of the New Testament in favour of it.--It is
quite obvious that Matthew does not quote the Old Testament prophecy in
reference to any single special event which happened at Capernaum; but
that rather the whole following account of the glorious deeds of Christ
in Galilee, as well as in Peraea, down to chap. xix. 1, serves to mark
the fulfilment of this Old Testament prophecy, and is subservient to
this quotation. _This passage of Matthew explains the reason, why it is
that he, and Luke and Mark who closely follow him, report henceforth,
until the last journey of Jesus to Jerusalem, exclusively facts which
happened in Galilee, and in Peraea, which likewise was mentioned by
Isaiah._ The circumstance that this fact, which is so obvious, was not
perceived, has called forth a number of miserable conjectures, and has
even led some interpreters to assail the credibility of the Gospel. To
Matthew, who wished to show that Jesus was the Christ, the Messiah
promised in the Old Testament, the interest must, in the view of the
prophecy under consideration, be necessarily concentrated upon Galilee;
and Mark and Luke followed him in this, perceiving that it was not
becoming to them to open up a path altogether new. This was reserved to
the second Apostle from among the Evangelists.

Ver. 2 (3). "_Thou multipliest the nation to which thou didst not
increase the joy; they joy before thee like the joy in harvest, and as
they rejoice when they divide the spoil._"

The Prophet beholds the joy of the Messianic time as present; he
beholds the covenant-people numerous, free from all misery, and full of
joy; full of delight he turns to the Lord, and praises Him for what He
has done to His people.--One [Pg 81] of the privileges of the people of
God is the increase which at all times takes place after they are
sifted and thinned by judgments. Thus, _e.g._, it happened at the time
after their return from the captivity, comp. Ps. cvii. 38, 39: "And He
blesseth them, and they are multiplied greatly, and He suffereth not
their cattle to decrease. They who were minished and brought low
through affliction, oppression, and sorrow." But this increase took
place most gloriously at the time of Christ, when a numerous multitude
of adopted sons from among the Gentiles were received into the Church
of God, and thus the promise to Abraham: "I will make of thee a great
nation" ([Hebrew: gvi] as in the passage before us, and not [Hebrew:
eM]), received its final fulfilment. From the arguments which we
advanced in Vol. i. on Hosea ii. 1, it appears that the increase which
the Church received by the reception of the Gentiles is, according
to the biblical view, to be considered as an increase of the people
of Israel. The fundamental thought of Ps. lxxxvii. is: Zion the
birth-place of the nations; by the new birth the Gentiles are received
in Israel. The manner in which the Gentiles show their anxiety to be
received in Israel is described by Isaiah in chap. xliv. 5. The
commentary on the words: "Thou multipliest the nation," is furnished to
us by chap. liv. 1 ff., where, in immediate connection with the
prophecy regarding the Servant of God who bears the sin of the world,
it is said: "Sing, O barren, thou that didst not bear, break forth into
singing, and shout thou that didst not travail with child; for more are
the children of the desolate than the children of the married wife,
saith the Lord." Comp. also chap. lxvi. 7-9, and Ezek. xxxvii. 25, 26:
"And my servant David shall be their prince for ever. And I make a
covenant with them and multiply them." Several interpreters, _e. g._
_Calvin_, _Vitringa_, suppose that the Prophet in this verse (and so
likewise in the two following verses) speaks, in the first instance, of
a nearer prosperity, of the rapid increase of the people after the
Babylonish captivity. _Vitringa_ directs attention to the fact, that
the Jewish people after the captivity did not only fill Judea, but
spread also in Egypt, Syria, Mesopotamia, Asia Minor, Greece, and
Italy. And surely we cannot deny that in this increase, no less than in
the new flourishing of the people after the defeat of Sennacherib also,
there is a _prelude_ to the real fulfilment; [Pg 82] and that so much
the more that these precursory increases, happening, as they did,
regularly after the decreases, were bestowed upon the covenant-people
with a view to the future appearance of Christ. These increases enter
into a still closer relation to the prophecy under consideration, if we
keep in mind that in chap. vii. the Prophet anticipates in spirit the
appearance of Christ, and that it is with this representation that, in
the Section before us, chap. viii. 8, 10 are connected. In order to
refute the explanation of _Umbriet_: "Thou hast multiplied the
_heathen_, and thereby thou hast removed all joy; but now," &c., it
will be quite sufficient to refer to the parallel passage, chap. xxvi.
15: "Thou increasest the _people_, O Lord, thou art glorified, thou
removest all the boundaries of the land," where, just as in the verse
before us, by [Hebrew: hgvi] "the people," Israel is designated; and
that is frequently the case where the notion of the multitude, the mass
only is concerned, comp. Gen. xii. 2.--"_Thou didst not increase the
joy_" stands for: to whom thou formerly didst not increase the joy, to
whom thou gavest but little joy, upon whom thou inflictedst severe
sufferings. The antithesis is quite the same as in chap. viii. 23 (ix.
1), where the former distress is contrasted with the light which is now
to shine upon them, the former disgrace with the later glory; and in
the same manner in chap. ix. 1 (2), where the present _light_ is
rendered brighter by being contrasted with the former _darkness_. The
contrast of the present _increase_ with the former absence of joys
shows that the joy is to be viewed as being connected with the
increase, and that if formerly the joy was less, the reason of it was
chiefly in the _decrease_. Ps. cvii. 38, 39, 41, shews how affliction
and decrease, joy and increase, go hand in hand; farther, Jerem. xxx.
19: "And out of them proceed thanksgivings, and the voice of the merry
ones; and I multiply them, and they do not decrease; and I honour them,
and they are not small." The decrease is a single symptom only of a
depressed, joyless condition, which everywhere in the kingdom of God
shall be brought to an end by Christ. Most of the ancient translators
(LXX., Chald., Syr.) follow the marginal reading [Hebrew: lv], "_to
him_" hast thou increased the joy. According to many modern
interpreters, [Hebrew: la] is supposed to be a different mode of
writing for [Hebrew: lv]. But no _proof_ that could stand the test can
be brought forward for [Pg 83] such a mode of writing; nor is there any
reason for supposing that [Hebrew: la] stands here in a different sense
from what it does in chap. viii. 23, and it would indeed be strange
that [Hebrew: lv] should have been placed before the verb. At most, it
might be supposed that the Prophet intended an ambiguous and double
sense: not/(to him) didst thou increase the joy. But altogether apart
from such an ambiguous and double sense, behind the negative, at all
events, the positive is concealed; thou multipliest the people, and
increasest to them the joy, thou who formerly didst decrease their joy,
&c.; and it is to this positive that the words refer which, in Luke ii.
10, the angels address to the shepherds: [Greek: me phobeisthe, idou
gar euangelizomai humin charan megalen hetis estai panti to lao hoti
etechthe humin semeron soter, hos esti Christos Kurios]; comp. Matth.
ii. 10.--In the following words, the Prophet expresses, in the first
instance, the nature of the joy, then its greatness. The joy over the
blessings received is a joy _before God_, under a sense of His
immediate presence. The expression is borrowed from the sacrificial
feasts in the courts before the sanctuary, at which the partakers
rejoiced _before the Lord_, Deut. xii. 7, 12, 18, xiv. 26. In Immanuel,
God with his blessings and gifts has truly entered into the midst of
His people. With the joy at _the dividing of the spoil_, the joy is
compared only to show its greatness, just as with the joy _in the
harvest_; and it is in vain that Knobel tries here to bring in a
dividing of spoil.

Vers. 3, (4). "_For the yoke of his burden and the staff of his neck,
the rod of his driver thou hast broken as in the day of Midian._"

In this verse, the reason of the people's joy announced in the
preceding verse is stated: it is the deliverance from the world's
power, under the oppression of which they groaned, or, in point of
fact, were to groan. He who imposes the _yoke_ and the _staff_, the
_driver_, (an allusion to the Egyptian taskmasters, masters, comp.
Exod. iii. 7; v. 10), is Asshur, and the _whole_ world's power hostile
to the Kingdom of God, which is represented by him, and which by Christ
was to receive, and has received, a mortal blow. A prelude to the
fulfilment took place by the defeat of Sennacherib under Hezekiah,
comp. chap. x. 5, 24, 27; xiv. 25. After him. Babel had to experience
[Pg 84] the destructive power of the Lord, the single phases of which,
pervading, as they do, all history, are here comprehended in one great
act. Although the definitive fulfilment begins first with the
appearance of Christ in the flesh, who spoke to His people: [Greek:
tharseite, ego nenikeka ton kosmon], yet after what we remarked on ver.
2, we are fully entitled to consider the former catastrophes also of
the kingdoms of the world as preludes to the real fulfilment.--[Hebrew:
wkM] "shoulder" does not suit as the _membrum cui verbera infliguntur_;
it comes, as is commonly the case, into consideration as that member
with which burdens are borne. The _staff_ or tyranny is a heavy
_burden_, comp. chap. x. 27: "His burden shall be taken away from
off thy shoulder." "_As in the day of Midian_" is equivalent to: as
thou once didst break the yoke of Midian. This event was especially
fitted to serve as a type of the glorious future victory over the
world's power, partly because the oppression by Midian was very
hard,--according to Judges vii. 12, Midian, Amalek, and the sons of
the East broke in upon the land like grasshoppers for multitude, and
their camels were without number, as the sand by the seaside for
multitude--partly because the help of the Lord (_thou_ hast broken) was
at that time specially visible. "I will be with thee," says the Lord to
Gideon in Judges vi. 16, "and thou shalt smite the Midianites as one
man;" and Judges vii. 2: "The people that are with thee are too many,
as that I could give the Midianites into their hands, lest Israel vaunt
themselves against me, saying: Mine own hand hath saved me."

Vers. 4, (5). "_For every war-shoe put on with noise, and the garment
rolled in blood: it is for burning, food of fire._"

We have here the reason why the tyranny is broken: _for_ the enemies of
the Kingdom of God shall entirely and for ever be rendered incapable of
carrying on warfare. If the noisy war-shoes, and their blood-stained
garments are to be burned, they themselves must, of course, have been
previously destroyed. But, if that be the case, then all war and
tyranny are come to an end, "for the dead do not live, and the shades
do not rise," chap. xxvi. 14. The parallel passages, Ps. xlvi. 10, and
Ezek. xxxix. 9, 10, do not permit us to doubt that the burning of the
war-shoes and of the bloody garments come into consideration here as a
consequence of the destruction of [Pg 85] the conquerors. Nor can we,
according to these passages, entertain, for a moment, the idea of
_Meier_, that those bloody garments belong to _Israel_.

Vers. 5 (6). "_For unto us a child is horn, unto us a son is given, and
the government is upon his shoulders, and his name shall be called
Wonder-Counsellor, God-Hero, Ever-Father, Prince of Peace._"

The Prophet had hitherto spoken only of the salvation which is to
spread from Galilee over the rest of the country; it is first here that
its author, in all His sublime glory, comes before him; and, having
come to him, the prophecy rises to exalted feelings of joy. In chap.
vii. 14, the Prophet beholds the Saviour as being already born; hence
the Preterites [Hebrew: ild] and [Hebrew: ntN]. If any one should
imagine that from the use of these Preterites he were entitled to infer
that the subject of the prophecy must, at that time, already have been
born, he must also, on account of the Preterites in vers. 1 (2) suppose
that the announced salvation had at that time been already bestowed
upon Israel,--which no interpreter does. _Hitzig_ correctly remarks:
"Because He is still _future_, the Prophet in His first appearance,
beholds Him as a child, and as the son of another." _Whose_ son He is
we are not told; but it is supposed to be already known. Ever since the
revelation in 2 Sam. vii., the Messiah could be conceived of as the Son
of David only; compare the words: "Upon the throne of David" in vers. 6
(7), and chap. xi. 1, lv. 3. As the Son of God the Saviour appears as
early as in Ps. ii.; and it is to that Psalm that the "God-Hero"
alludes, and connects itself. Alluding to the passage before us, we
read in John iii. 16: [Greek: houto gar egapesen ho theos ton kosmon]
("The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this,") vers. 6 [7],
[Greek: hoste ton huion autou ton monogene edoken].--When grown up, the
Son has the government upon His shoulder. The Prophet contrasts Christ
with the _world's power_, which threatened destruction to the people of
God. This, then, refers to the _Kingly office_ of Christ, and the state
of glory. Parallel is the declaration of Christ in Matt. xxviii. 18,
[Greek: edothe moi pasa exousia]. The Lord has also, in John xviii. 37,
confirmed the truth that He is _King_; and it is upon the ground of His
own declaration that Pilate designates Him upon the cross as a King.
Although His Kingdom is not of [Pg 86] this world, John xviii. 36, it
is, just for that very reason, so much the more all-governing. The
[Greek: enteuthen] in that passage is contrasted with the words "from
heaven" in Dan. ii., by which, in that passage, its absolute
superiority over all the kingdoms of the world, and its crushing power
are declared to be indissolubly connected.--"_The shoulder_" comes,
here also, as in vers. 3 (4), chap. x. 27, into consideration in so far
as on it we _bear_; comp. Gen. xlix. 15; Ps. lxxxi. 7. The bearer of an
office has it, as it were, on his shoulders.--The Jewish interpreters,
despairing of being able, with any appearance of truth, to apply the
following attributes to Hezekiah, insist that, with the exception of
the last, they denote Him who calls, not Him who is called: the
Wonderful, &c., called him Prince of peace. Altogether apart from the
consideration that this is in opposition to the accents, the mentioning
of so many names of Jehovah is here quite unsuitable; and, in all other
passages, the noun put after [Hebrew: wmv qra] designates always him
who is called. Modern Exegesis has tried everything with a view to
deprive the names of their deep meaning, in order to adapt them to a
Messiah in the ordinary Jewish sense, hence, to do that of which the
Jews themselves had already despaired. But, in doing so, they have
considered the names too much by themselves, overlooking the
circumstance that the full and deeper meaning of the individual
attributes, as it at first sight presents itself, must, in the
connection in which they here occur, be so much the rather held fast.
The names are completed in the number _four_,--the mark of that which
is complete and finished. _They form two pairs, and every single name
is again compounded of two names._ The first name is [Hebrew: pla
iveC]. That these two words must be _connected_ with one another
(_Theodor._--[Greek: thaumastos bouleuon]) appears from the analogy of
the other names, especially of [Hebrew: al gbvr] with whom [Hebrew: pla
iveC] forms one pair; and then from the circumstance that [Hebrew:
iveC] alone would, in this connection, be too indefinite. The words do
not stand in the relation of the _Status constructus_, but are
connected in the same manner as [Hebrew: pra adM] in Gen. xvi. 12.
[Hebrew: iveC] designates the attribute which is here concerned, while
[Hebrew: pla] points out the supernatural, superhuman degree in which
the King possesses this attribute, and the infinite riches of
consolation and help which are to be found in such [Pg 87] a King. As a
_Counsellor_, He is a _Wonder_, absolutely elevate d above everything
which the earth possesses in excellency of counselling. As [Hebrew:
pla] commonly denotes "wonder" in the strictest sense (comp. chap. xxv.
1: "I will exalt thee, I will praise thy name, for thou hast done
wonders," Ps. lxxvii. 15: "Thou art the God that doest wonders;" Exod.
xv. 11); as it here stands in parallelism with [Hebrew: al] God; as the
whole context demands that we should take the words in their full
meaning;--we can consider it only as an arbitrary weakening of the
sense, that several interpreters explain [Hebrew: pla iveC]
"extraordinary Counsellor." Parallel is Judges xiii. 18 where the Angel
of the Lord, after having announced the birth of Samson, says: "Why
askest thou thus after my name?--it is wonderful," [Hebrew: plai],
_i.e._, my whole nature is wonderful, of unfathomable depth, and
cannot, therefore, be expressed by any human name. _Farther_--Revel.
xix. 12 is to be compared, where Christ has a name written that no man
knows but He himself, to intimate the immeasurable glory of His nature.
That which is here, in the first instance, said of a single attribute
of the King, applies, at the same time, to all others, holds true of
His whole nature; the King is a Wonder as a Counsellor, because His
whole person is wonderful. A proof, both of the connection of the two
words, and against the weakening of the sense, is afforded by the
parallel passage, chap. xxviii. 29, where it is said of the Most
High God [Hebrew: hplia ech], "He shows himself wonderful in His
counsel."--The second name is [Hebrew: al gbvr] "God-Hero." Besides the
ability of giving good counsel, a good government requires also
[Hebrew: gbvrh] strength, heroic power: comp. chap. xi. 2, according to
which the spirit of counsel and strength rest upon the Messiah. What
may not be expected from a King who not only, like a David in a higher
degree, possesses the greatest _human measure_ of heroic strength, but
who is also a _God-Hero_, and a _Hero-God_, so that with His appearance
there _disappears_ completely the contrast of the invisible Head of the
people of God, and of His visible substitute,--a contrast which so
often manifested itself, to the great grief of the covenant-people? The
God-Hero forms the contrast to a human hero whose heroic might is,
after all, always _limited_, [Hebrew: al gbvr] can signify God-Hero
only, a Hero who is infinitely exalted above all human heroes [Pg 88]
by the circumstance that He is _God_. To the attempts at weakening the
import of the name, chap. x. 21, where [Hebrew: al gbvr] is said of the
Most High, appears a very inconvenient obstacle,--a parallel passage
which does not occur by chance, but where [Hebrew: war iwvb] stands
with an intentional reference to chap. vii.: "The remnant shall return,
the remnant of Jacob, unto the Hero-God," who is furnished with
invincible strength for His people; comp. Ps. xxiv. 8: "The Lord strong
and a hero, the Lord a hero of war." The older Rationalistic exposition
endeavoured to set aside the deity of the Messiah by the explanation:
"strong hero." So also did _Gesenius_. This explanation, against which
chap. x. 21 should have warned, has been for ever set aside by the
remark of _Hitzig_: "Commonly, in opposition to all the _usus
loquendi_, the word is translated by: _strong hero_. But [Hebrew: al]
is always, even in passages such as Gen. xxxi. 29, "God," and in all
those passages which are adduced to prove that it means "_princeps_,"
"_potens_," the forms are to be derived not from [Hebrew: al], but from
[Hebrew: ail], which properly means 'ram,'then 'leader,''prince.'" By
this explanation, especially the passage Ezek. xxxii. 21, which had
formerly been appealed to in support of the translation "strong hero,"
is set aside; for the [Hebrew: ali gbvriM] of that passage are "rams of
heroes." Rationalistic interpreters now differ in their attempts at
getting rid of the troublesome fact. _Hitzig_ says, "Strong God"--he
erroneously views [Hebrew: gbvr], which always means "hero," as an
adjective--"the future deliverer is called by the oriental not strictly
separating the Divine and human, and He is called so by way of
exaggeration, in so far as He possesses divine qualities." A like
opinion is expressed by _Knobel_: "Strong God the Messiah is called,
because in the wars with the Gentiles He will prove himself as a hero
equipped with divine strength." The expression proves a divine nature
as little as when in Ps. lxxxii. 1-6, comp. John x. 34, 35, kings are,
in general, called [Hebrew: alhiM], "gods, _Like_ God, to be compared
to Him, a worthy representative of Him, and hence, likewise, called
God." It is true that there is one [Hebrew: al gbvr] only, and that,
according to chap. x. 21, the Messiah cannot be [Hebrew: al gbvr]
beside the Most High God, excepting _by partaking in his nature_. Such
a participation in the nature, not His being merely filled with the
power of [Pg 89] God, is absolutely required to explain the expression.
It is true that in the Law of Moses all those who have to command or to
judge, all those to whom, for some reason or other, respect or
reverence is due, are consecrated as the representatives of God on
earth; _e.g._, a court of justice is of God, and he who appears before
it appears before God. But the name _Elohim_ is there given _in general
only to the judicial court_, which represents God--to the _office_, not
to the single individuals who are invested with it. In Ps. lxxxii. 1,
the name _Elohim_ in the expression: "He judgeth among the gods" is
given to the single, judging individual; comp. also ver. 6; but this
passage forms an isolated exception. To explain, from it, the passage
before us is inadmissible, even from chap. x. 21, where [Hebrew: al
gbvr] stands in its fullest sense. It must not be overlooked that that
passage in Ps. lxxxii. belongs to higher poetry; that the author
himself there mitigates in ver. 6, in the parallel member, the strength
of the expression: "I have said ye are _Elohim_, and sons of the Most
High ye all;" and, finally, that there _Elohim_ is used as the most
vague and general name of God, while here _El_, a personal name, is
used. _Hendewerk_, _Ewald_, and others, finally, explain "_God's
hero_," _i.e._, "a divine hero, who, like an invincible God, fights and
conquers." But in opposition to this view, it has been remarked by
_Meier_ that then necessarily the words ought to run, [Hebrew: gbvr
al]. It is farther obvious that by this explanation the [Hebrew: gbvr
al] here is, in a manner not to be admitted, disconnected and severed
from those passages where it occurs as an attribute of the Most High
God; comp. besides chap. x. 21; Deut. x. 17; Jer. xxxii. 18.

The third name is _Father of eternity_. That admits of a double
explanation. Several interpreters refer to the Arabic _usus loquendi_,
according to which he is called the father of a thing who possesses it;
_e.g._, Father of mercy, _i.e._, the merciful one. This _usus
loquendi_, according to the supposition formerly very current, occurs
in Hebrew very frequently, especially in proper names, _e.g._, [Hebrew:
Tvb abi]. "Father of goodness," _i.e._, the good one. According to this
view. Father of eternity would be equivalent to Eternal one. According
to the opinion of others. Father of eternity is _he who will ever be a
Father_, _an affectionate provider_, comp. chap. xxii. 21, where
Eliakim [Pg 90] is called "_Father_ to the inhabitants of Jerusalem;"
Job xxix. 16; Ps. lxviii. 6. _Luther_, too, thus explains: "Who at all
times feeds His Kingdom and Church, in whom there is a fatherly love
without end." The _latter_ view is to be preferred unconditionally.
Against the former view is the circumstance that all the other names
stand in direct reference to the salvation of the covenant-people,
while, in the mere eternity, this reference would not distinctly enough
appear. And it has farther been rightly remarked by _Ewald_, that that
_usus loquendi_ in Arabic always belongs to the artificial, often to
jocular discourse. Whether it occur in Hebrew at all is still a matter
of controversy; _Ewald_, Sec. 27, denies that it occurs in proper names
also. On the other hand, the paternal love, the rich kindness and
mercy, exceedingly well suit the first two names which indicate
unfathomable _wisdom_, and divine _heroic strength_. The rationalistic
interpreters labour very hard to _weaken_ the idea of _eternity_. But
the "Provider for life" agrees very ill with the _Wonder-Counsellor_,
and the _God-hero_. The absolute eternity of the Messiah's dominion is,
on the foundation of 2 Sam. vii., most emphatically declared in other
passages also (comp. vol. i., p. 132, 133), and meets us here again
immediately in the following verse. The name Ever-Father, too, leads us
to _divine Majesty_, comp. chap. xlv. 17: "Israel is saved by the Lord
with an _everlasting_ salvation; ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded
in all _eternity_" chap. lvii. 15, where God is called [Hebrew:
wkN ed] "the ever dwelling;" farther, Ps. lxviii. 6: "A _Father_ of
the fatherless, and a judge of the widows is God in His holy
habitation," where the providence of God for the _personae miserabiles_
is praised with a special reference to that which He does for His poor
people.--_Hitzig's_ explanation: "Father of prey," does not suit the
prophetic style, and has, in general, no analogy from Hebrew to adduce
in its favour. The circumstance that, in the verse immediately
following, the eternity of the government is mentioned, shows that
[Hebrew: ed] must be taken in its ordinary signification "eternity."

The fourth name, _Prince of peace_, stands purposely at the end, and is
to be considered as strongly emphatic. War, hostile oppression, the
distress of the servitude which threatens the people of God,--these are
the things which, in the first instance, [Pg 91] have directed the
Prophet's eye to the Messiah. The name points back to Solomon who
typified Christ's dominion of peace, and who himself, in the Song of
Solomon, transfers his name to Christ (comp. my Comment. S. 1 ff.);
then to the Shiloh, Gen. xlix. 10 (comp. vol. i, 84, 85). We should
misunderstand the name were we to infer from it that, in the Messianic
time, all war should cease. Were such to be the case, why is it that,
immediately before, the Redeemer is designated as _God-Hero_? Peace is
the aim; it is offered to all the nations in Christ; but those who
reject it, who rise up against His Kingdom, He throws down, as the
God-Hero, with a powerful hand, and _obtains by force_ peace for His
people. But war, as far as it takes place, is carried on in a form
different from that which existed under the Old dispensation. According
to Micah v. 9 (10), ff., the Lord makes His people outwardly
defenceless, before they become in Christ world-conquering; comp. vol.
i., p. 515. According to chap. xi. 4, Christ smiteth the earth with the
rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the
wicked.

Ver. 6 (7.) "_To the increase of the government and to the peace, there
is no end, upon the throne of David and over his kingdom, so that he
establisheth it, and supporteth it by justice and righteousness, from
henceforth even for ever. The zeal of the Lord of Hosts shall perform
this._"

There is no reason for connecting this verse with the preceding one;
in which case the sense would be: "For the increase of government and
for peace without end." _For_ chap. ii. 7; Nah. ii. 10; Job. xvi.
3--in which [Hebrew: l] with [Hebrew: qC] occurs in the very same
sense--clearly show that the [Hebrew: l] in [Hebrew: lwlvM] and
[Hebrew: lmrbh] may very well be understood as a mere sign of the
Dative. And the objection that the following [Hebrew: lhkiN], &c.
would, in that case, be unsuitable, is removed if it be explained: so
that He establisheth, &c., or: by His establishing, &c.; comp. _Ewald_,
_Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache_ Sec. 280 d. The words designate the basis on
which the increase of government and the peace rest. The Kingdom of God
will, through the Redeemer, acquire an ever increasing _extent_, and,
along with it, perfect _peace_ shall be enjoyed by the world. For it is
not by rude force that this kingdom is to be founded and established,
as is the case with worldly kingdoms, in which increase of [Pg 92]
government and peace, far from being always connected, are, on the
contrary, irreconcilable opponents, but by _justice_ and
_righteousness_. Parallel is Ps. lxvii. In vers. 11-15 of that Psalm,
the Psalmist just points to that "by which all nations and kings are
induced to do homage to that king; it is just that which, in the whole
Psalm, appears as the root of everything else, viz., the absolute
justice of the king." _Decrease_ of government and _war_ without end
were, meanwhile, in prospect, and they were so, because those who were
sitting on the throne of David did not support his kingdom by justice
and righteousness. But the Psalmist intimates to the trembling minds
that such is not the end of the ways of God with His people; that at
last the idea of the Kingdom of God will be realized. From the
fundamental passage, Ps. lxxii. 8-11, and parallel passages, such as
chap. ii. 2, 4; Mic. v. 3 (4); Zech. ix. 10, it is obvious that, as
regards the endless increase of the government, the Prophet thinks of
all the nations of the earth. On the _peace_ without end, comp. Ps.
lxxii. 7; chap. ii. 4; Mic. v. 4 (5), and the words: "He speaketh peace
unto the heathen," Zech. ix. 10. The [Hebrew: l] designates the
substratum on which the increase of dominion and the peace manifest
themselves; the dominion of the Davidic family and its kingdom gain
infinitely in extent, and in the same degree peace also increases. In
these words the Prophet gives an intimation that the Messiah will
proceed from David's family, comp. chap. xi. 1 where he designates Him
as the twig of Jesse.--[Hebrew: hkiN] "to confirm," "to establish,"
used of throne and kingdom, 1 Sam. xiii. 13, comp. 14; 1 Kings ii. 12,
comp. ver. 24, and farther, chap. xvi. 5.--The words: "from henceforth
even for ever" do not, as _Umbreit_ supposes, refer to every thing in
this verse, but to the words immediately preceding. That the words must
be understood in their full sense, we have already proved in our
remarks on the fundamental passage, 2 Sam. vii. 13: "And I will
establish the throne of His kingdom for ever;" see Vol. i. p. 131.
_Michaelis_ says: "So that that promise to David shall never fail." The
[Hebrew: eth] does not refer to the _actual_, but to the _ideal_
present, to the first appearance of the Redeemer, to the words: "Unto
us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government is upon
His shoulder."--This great change is brought about [Pg 93] by the
_zeal_ of the Lord who raises this glorious King to His people; comp.
John iii. 16. The zeal in itself is only _energy_; the sphere of its
exercise is, in every instance, determined by the context. In Exod. xv.
5; Deut. iv. 24; Nah. i. 2, the zeal is the energy of wrath. In the
passage before us, as in the Song of Solomon viii. 6, and in chap.
xxxvii. 32: "For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and escaped
ones out of Mount Zion; the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this,"
the zeal of God means the energetic character of His love to Zion.

We must, in conclusion, still make a few remarks, on the interpretation
of vers. 5 and 6. The older interpreters were unanimous in referring
these verses to the Messiah. Even by the Jews, this explanation was
abandoned at a subsequent period only. To the Messiah this passage is
referred by the Chaldean Paraphrast, by the Commentary on Genesis known
by the name _Breshith Rabbah_ in the exposition of Genesis xli. 44 (see
_Raim. Martini Pugio fidei_, Vol. iii. sec. 3, chap. xiv. Sec. 6), by
Rabbi _Jose Galilaeus_ in the book _Ekha Rabbati_, a Commentary on
Lamentations (see _Raim. Matt._ iii. 3 chap. 4, Sec. 13). _Ben Sira_ (fol.
40 ed., Amstel. 1679), mentions among the eight names of the Messiah,
the following from the passage before us: Wonderful, Counsellor, El
Gibbor, Prince of Peace. But the late Jewish interpreters found it
objectionable that the Messiah, in opposition to their doctrinal views,
was here described as God; for doctrinal reasons, therefore, they gave
up the received interpretation, and sought to adapt the passage to
Hezekiah. Among these, however, _Rabbi Lipmann_ allows the Messianic
explanation to a certain degree to remain. Acknowledging that the
prophecy could not refer exclusively to Hezekiah, he extends it to all
the successors from the House of David, including the Messiah, by whom
it is to attain its most perfect fulfilment. Among Christian
interpreters, _Grotius_ was the first to abandon the Messianic
explanation. Even _Clericus_ acknowledges that the predicates are
applicable to Hezekiah "_sensu admodum diluto_" only. At the time when
Rationalism had the ascendancy, it became pretty current to explain
them of Hezekiah. _Gesenius_ modified this view by supposing that the
Prophet had connected his Messianic wishes and expectations with
Hezekiah, and [Pg 94] expected their realization by him. At present
this view is nearly abandoned; after _Gesenius_, _Hendewerk_ is the
only one who still endeavours to defend it.

Against the application to Hezekiah even this single argument is
decisive, that a glory is here spoken of, which is to be bestowed
especially upon Galilee which belonged to the kingdom of the ten
tribes. _Farther_--Although the prophecy be considered as a human
foreboding only, how could the Prophet, to whom, everywhere else such a
sharp eye is ascribed, that, from it, they endeavour to explain his
fulfilled prophecies,--how could the Prophet have expected that
Hezekiah, who was at that time a boy of about nine years of age, and
who appeared under such unfavourable circumstances, should realize the
hopes which he here utters in reference to the world's power, should
conquer that power definitively and for ever, should infinitely extend
his kingdom, and establish an everlasting dominion? How could he have
ascribed divine attributes to Hezekiah who, in his human weakness,
stood before him? _Finally_--The undeniable agreement of the prophecy
before us with other Messianic passages, especially with Ps. lxxii. and
Is. xi., where even _Gesenius_ did not venture to maintain the
reference to Hezekiah, is decidedly in opposition to the reference to
Hezekiah.




                           THE TWIG OF JESSE.
                           (Chap. xi., xii.)


These chapters constitute part of a larger whole which begins with
chap. x. 5. With regard to the time of the composition of this
discourse, it appears, from chap. x. 9-11, that Samaria was already
conquered. The prophecy, therefore, cannot be prior to the sixth year
of Hezekiah. On the other hand, the defeat of the Assyrian host, which,
under Sennacherib, invaded Judah, is announced as being still future.
The prophecy, accordingly, falls into the period between the 6th and
the 14th year of Hezekiah's reign. From the circumstance that in it [Pg
95] the king of Asshur is represented as being about to march against
Jerusalem, it is commonly inferred that it was uttered shortly before
the destruction of the Assyrian host, and hence, belongs to the
fourteenth year of Hezekiah. But this ground is not very safe. It would
certainly be overlooking the liveliness with which the prophets beheld
and represented future things as present; it would be confounding the
_ideal_ Present with the _actual_, if we were to infer from vers. 28-32
that the Assyrian army must already have reached the single stations
mentioned there. The utmost that we are entitled to infer from this
liveliness of description is, that the Assyrian army was already on its
march; but not even that can be inferred with certainty. In favour of
the immediate nearness of the danger, however, is the circumstance
that, in the prophecy, the threatening is kept so much in the
background; that, from the outset, it is comforting and encouraging,
and begins at once with the announcement of Asshur's destruction, and
Judah's deliverance. This seems to suggest that the place which,
everywhere else, is occupied by the threatening, was here taken by the
events themselves; so that of the two enemies of salvation, proud
security and despair, the latter only was here to be met. The prophecy
before us opens the whole series of the prophecies out of the 14th year
of Hezekiah, the most remarkable year of the Prophet's life, rich in
the revelations of divine glory, in which his prophecy flowed in full
streams, and spread on all sides.

The prophecy divides itself into two parts. The first, chap. x. 5-34,
contains the threatening against Asshur, who was just preparing to
inflict the deadly blow upon the people of God. The fact that in chap.
xi. we have not an absolutely new beginning before us, sufficiently
appears from the general analogy, according to which, as a rule, the
Messianic prophecy does not _begin_ the prophetical discourse; but
still more clearly from the circumstance that chap. xi. begins with
"and;" to which argument may still be added the fact that the figure in
the first verse of this chapter evidently refers to the figure in the
last verse of the preceding chapter. Asshur had there been represented
as a stately forest which was to be cut down by the hand of the Lord;
while here the house of David appears as a stem cut down, from the
roots of which a small twig shall [Pg 96] come forth, which, although
unassuming at first, is to grow up into a fruit-bearing tree. The
purpose of the whole discourse was to strengthen and comfort believers
on the occasion of Asshur's inroad into the country; to bring it home
to the convictions of those who were despairing of the Kingdom of God,
that He who is in the midst of them is greater than the world with all
its apparent power; and thereby to awaken and arouse them to resign
themselves entirely into the hands of their God. It is for this purpose
that the Prophet first describes the catastrophe of Asshur; that, then,
in chap. xi., he points to the highest glorification which in future is
destined for the Church of God by the appearance of Christ, in order
that she may the more clearly perceive that every fear regarding her
existence is folly.

The connection of the two passages appears so much the more plainly
when we consider, that that which, in chap. x., was said of Asshur, and
especially the close in vers. 33 and 34: "Behold Jehovah of hosts cuts
down the branches with power, and those of a high stature shall be hewn
down, and the high ones shall be made low. And He cuts down the
thickets of the forest with the iron, and Lebanon shall fall by the
glorious one," _refers to him as the representative of the whole
world's power_; that the defeat of Sennacherib before Jerusalem is to
be considered as the nearest fulfilment only, but not as the _full_ and
_real_ fulfilment.

From the family of David sunk into total obscurity--such is the
substance--there shall, at some future period, rise a Ruler who, at
first low and without appearance, shall attain to great glory and
bestow rich blessings,--a Ruler furnished with the fulness of the
Spirit of God and of His gifts, filled with the fear of God, looking
sharply and deeply, and not blinded by any appearance, just and an
helper of the oppressed, an almighty avenger of wickedness, ver. 1-5.
By him all the consequences of the fall, even down to the irrational
creation, in the world of men and of nature, shall be removed, ver.
6-9. Around Him the Gentiles, formerly addicted to idols, shall gather,
ver. 10. In ver. 11-16 the Prophet describes what he is to do for
Israel, to whom the discourse was in the first instance addressed, and
upon whom it was to impress the word: "Fear not." Under Him they obtain
deliverance [Pg 97] from the condition of being scattered and exiled
from the face of the Lord, the removal of pernicious dissensions,
conquering power in relation to the world which assails them, and the
removal of all obstacles to salvation by the powerful arm of the Lord.

The reference of the prophecy to the Messiah is, among all the
explanations, the most ancient. We find it in the Targum of Jonathan,
who thus renders the first verse: [Hebrew: vipq mlka mbnvhi diwi vmwiHa
mbni bnvhi itrbi]. St. Paul quotes this prophecy in Rom. xv. 12, and
proves from it the calling of the Gentiles. In 2 Thes. ii. 8 he quotes
the words of ver. 4, and assigns to Christ what is said in it. In Rev.
v. 5, xxii. 16, Christ, with reference to ver. 1 and 10, is called the
root of David. The Messianic explanation was defended by most of the
older Jewish interpreters, especially by _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, and
_Kimchi_.[1] It is professed even by most of the rationalistic
interpreters, by the modern ones especially, without any exception
(_Eichhorn_, _De Wette_, _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, _Ewald_),
although, it is true, they distinguish between Jesus Christ and the
Messiah of the Old Testament,--as, _e.g._, _Gesenius_ has said:
"Features such as those in ver. 4 and 5 exclude any other than the
political Messiah, and King of the Israelitish state," and _Hitzig_: "A
political Messiah whose attributes, especially those assigned to him
ver. 3 and 4, are not applicable to Jesus."

But the non-Messianic interpretation, too, has found its defenders.
According to a statement of Theodoret, the passage was referred by the
Jews to Zerubbabel.[2] Interpreters more numerous and distinguished
have referred it to Hezekiah. This interpretation is mentioned as early
as by _Ephraem Syrus_; among the Rabbis it was held by _Moses
Hakkohen_, and _Abenezra_; among Christian interpreters, _Grotius_ was
the first who professed it, but in such a manner that he assumed a
higher reference to Christ. ("The Prophet returns to praise Hezekiah in
words under which the higher praises of Christ are concealed.") He was
followed by _Dathe_. The exclusive reference to Hezekiah was maintained
by _Hermann v. d._ [Pg 98] _Hardt_, in a treatise published in 1695,
which, however, was confiscated; then, by a number of interpreters at
the commencement of the age of Rationalism, at the head of whom was
_Bahrdt_. Among the expositors of the last decade, this interpretation
is held by _Hendewerk_ alone.

The reasons for the Messianic interpretation, and against making
Hezekiah the subject of the prophecy, are, among others, the
following:--

1. _The comparison of the parallel passages._ The Messiah is here
represented under the figure of a shoot or sprout. This has become so
common, as a designation of the Messiah, that the name "Sprout" has
almost become a proper name of the Messiah; compare the remarks on
chap. iv. 2. A striking resemblance to ver. 1 is presented by chap.
lviii. 2, where the Messiah, to express His lowliness at the beginning
of His course, is, in the same manner as here, compared to a feeble and
tender twig. Ps. lxxii. and the prophecies in chap. ii., iv., vii.,
ix., and Mic. v., present so many agreements and coincidences with the
prophecy under consideration, that they must necessarily be referred to
one and the same subject. The reception of the Gentile nations into the
Kingdom of God, the holiness of its members, the cessation of all
hostilities, are features which constantly recur in the Messianic
prophecies.

2. There are features interwoven with the prophecy which lead to a more
than human dignity of its subject. Even this circumstance is of
importance here, that the _whole earth_ appears as the sphere of His
dominion. Still more distinctly is the human sphere overstepped by the
announcement that, under His government, _sin_, yea, even all
destruction in the outward nature is to cease, and the earth is to
return to the happy condition in which it was before the fall.
According to ver. 4, He slays the wicked in the whole earth by His mere
word,--a thing which elsewhere is said of _God_ only; and according to
ver. 10, the heathen shall render Him religious reverence.

3. A _future_ scion of David is here promised. For [Hebrew: vica] in
ver. 1 must be taken as a _praeteritum propheticum_, as is evident from
its being connected with the preceding chapter, which has to do with
future things, and in which the preterites have a prophetic meaning; as
also by the analogy of the following preterites from which this can by
no means be separated. But [Pg 99] at the time when this prophecy was
composed, Hezekiah had long ago entered upon the government.

4. The circumstances under which the Prophet makes the King appear are
altogether different from those at the time of Hezekiah. According to
ver. 1 and 10, the royal house of David would have entirely declined,
and sunk into the obscurity of private life, at the time when the
Promised One would appear. The Messiah is there represented as a tender
twig which springs forth from the roots of a tree cut down. In the
circumstance, too, that the stem is not called after David, but after
Jesse, it is intimated that the royal family is then to have sunk back
into the obscurity of private life. This does not apply to Hezekiah,
under whom the Davidic dynasty maintained its dignity, but to Christ
only. _Farther_: In ver. 11 there is an announcement of the return of
not only the members of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also of the
members of the kingdom of Judah from all the countries in which they
were dispersed. This must refer to a far later time than that of
Hezekiah; for at his time no carrying away of the inhabitants of Judah
had taken place. This argument is conclusive also against the false
modified Messianic explanation as it has been advanced by _Ewald_,
according to which the Prophet is supposed to have expected that the
Messiah would appear immediately after the judgment upon the Assyrians,
and after the conversion and reform of those in the Church who had been
spared in the judgment. The facts mentioned show that between the
appearance of the Messiah, and the Present and immediate Future, there
lay to the Prophet still a wide interval in which an entire change of
the present state of things was to take place. Ver. 11 is here of
special importance. For this verse opens up to us the prospect of a
whole series of catastrophes to be inflicted upon Israel by the world's
powers, all of which are already to have taken place at the time of the
King's appearance, and which lay beyond the historical horizon at the
time of the Prophet.

A certain amount of truth, indeed, lies at the foundation of the
explanation which refers the prophecy to Hezekiah. The fundamental
thought of the prophecy before us: "The exaltation of the world's
power, is a prophecy of its abasement; the abasement of the Davidic
Kingdom is a prophecy of its exaltation," [Pg 100] was, in a prelude,
to be realized even at that time. But the Prophet does not limit
himself to these feeble beginnings. He points to the infinitely greater
realization of this idea in the distant future, where the abasement
should be much deeper, but the exaltation also infinitely higher. To
him who had first, by a living faith, laid hold of Christ's appearance,
it must be easy, even in the present difficulty, to hope for the lower
salvation.

The distinction between the "political Messiah" of the prophecy before
us, and "Jesus of Nazareth"--a distinction got up by Rationalism--rests
chiefly upon the fact that Rationalism knows Christ as the _Son of Man_
only, and is entirely ignorant of His true eternal Kingdom. Hence a
prophecy which, except the intimation, in ver. 1, of His lowliness at
first, refers altogether to the glorified Christ, could not but appear
as inapplicable. But it is just by ver. 4, to which they chiefly
appeal, that a "political Messiah" is excluded; for to such an one the
words: "He smiteth the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the
breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked" do not in the least apply.
And so likewise vers. 6-9 altogether go beyond the sphere of a
political Messiah, All that at first sight seems to lead to such an one
belongs to the imagery which was, and could not fail to be, taken from
the predecessors and types on the throne of David, since Christ was to
be represented as He in whom the Davidic Kingdom attains to its full
truth and glory.

In the whole section, the Redeemer appears as a _King_. This is
altogether a matter of course, for He forms the antithesis to the king
of Asshur. It is quite in vain that _Umbreit_ has endeavoured to bring
political elements into the description. Thereby the sense is
essentially altered. We must keep closely in view the Prophet's
starting-point. Before those who were filled with cares and fears, lest
the Davidic Kingdom should be overturned by the Assyrian kingdom, he
holds up the bright image of the Kingdom of David, in its last
completion. When they had received that into their hearts, the king of
Asshur could not fail to appear to them in a light altogether
different, as a miserable wretch. The giant at once dwindled down into
a contemptible dwarf, and with tears still [Pg 101] in their eyes they
could not avoid laughing at themselves for having stood so much in awe
of him.

As is commonly the case in the Messianic prophecies, so here, too, no
attention is paid to the development of Christ's Kingdom in time.
Everything, therefore, is fulfilled only as to its beginning; and the
complete fulfilment still stands out for that future in which, after
the fulness of the Gentiles has been brought in, and apostate Israel
has been converted, the consequences of the fall shall, in the outward
nature also, be removed.

Ver. 1. "_And there cometh forth a twig from the stump of Jesse, and a
branch from his roots shall bear fruit._"

The circumstance that the words in the first verse are completed in the
number seven, divided into three and four, intimates that the Prophet
here enters upon the territory of the revelation of a mystery of the
Kingdom of God. Totally different--so the Prophet begins--from the fate
of Asshur, just now proclaimed, shall that of the royal house of David
be. Asshur shall be humbled at a time when he is most elevated. Lebanon
falls through the mighty One: but the house of David shall be exalted
at a time when he is most humbled. Who then would tremble and be
afraid, although it go downward? _Luther_ says: "This is a short
summary of the whole of theology and of the works of God, that Christ
did not come till the trunk had died, and was altogether in a hopeless
condition; that hence, when all hope is gone, we are to believe that it
is the time of salvation, and that God is then nearest when He seems to
be farthest off!" The same contrast appears in Ezek. xvii. 24. The Lord
brings down the high tree of the world's power, and exalts the low tree
of the Davidic house. The word [Hebrew: gze] does not mean "stem" in
general, as several rationalistic interpreters, and _Meier_ last, have
asserted, but rather stump, _truncus_, [Greek: kormos], as _Aquila_,
_Symmachus_, _Theodotion_, translate. This is proved from the following
reasons: (1) the derivation from [Hebrew: gze], in Arabic _secuit_,
equivalent to [Hebrew: gde], "to cut off," chap. ix. 9; x. 33. The
[Hebrew: gdeiM] in latter passage clearly refers to the [Hebrew: gze]
here. The proud trees of Asshur shall be _cut down_; from the cut down
trunk of David there shall grow up a _new_ tree overshadowing the
earth, and offering glorious fruits to them that dwell on it.--(2) The
_usus loquendi_. The signification, "stump," is, by [Pg 102] the
context, required in the two passages in which the word [Hebrew: gze]
still occurs. In Job xiv. 8, it is obvious. The whole passage there
from vers. 7-9 illustrates the figurative representation in the verse
under review. "For there is hope of a tree; if it be _cut down_ it will
sprout again, and its tender branch does not cease. Though the root
thereof wax old in the earth, and the _stump_ thereof die in the dust,
through the scent of waters it buds, and brings forth boughs, like one
newly planted." We have here the figure of our verse carried out. That
which water is to the natural tree decaying, the Spirit and grace of
God are to the dying tree, cut down to the very roots, of the Davidic
family. In the second passage. Is. xl. 23, 24, it is only by a false
interpretation that [Hebrew: gze] has been understood of the stem in
general. "He bringeth princes to nothing, He destroyeth the kings of
the earth. They are not planted; they are not sown; their _stump_ does
not take root in the earth." The Prophet, having previously proved
God's elevation over the creature, from the creation and preservation
of the world, now proves it from the nothingness of all that which on
earth has the greatest appearance of independent power. It costs Him no
effort to destroy all earthly greatness which places itself in
opposition to Him. He blows on them, and they have disappeared without
leaving any trace. If God's will be not with it, princes will not
attain to any firm footing and prosperity (they are not planted and
sown); they are like a cut-down stem which has no more power to take
root in the earth. A tree not planted dries up; corn not sown does not
produce fruit; a cut down tree does not take root.--(3.) The
connection. In the second member of the verse we read: "A branch from
his roots shall bear fruit." Unless we mean to adopt the altogether
unsuitable expedient of explaining it of a wild twig which shoots
forth from the roots of a still standing tree, we cannot but think of
a stem cut down to the very root. Against the opinion of _Hendewerk_
who remarks: "An indirect shoot from the root which comes forth from
the root through the stem;" and against _Meier's_ opinion: "The root
corresponds with the stem, and both together form the living tree,"
it is decisive, that in ver. 10, the Messiah is simply, and without
any mention being made of the stem, designated as [Hebrew: wrw]
"a shoot from the root." Farther, chap. liii. 2, where the Messiah
is represented [Pg 103] as a shoot from the root out of a dry
ground.--(4.) It is only when [Hebrew: gze] has the meaning, "stump,"
that it can be accounted for why the [Hebrew: gze] of Jesse, and not of
David, is spoken of--(5.) The supposition that the Messiah shall be
born at the time of the deepest humiliation of the Davidic family,
after the entire loss of the royal dignity, pervades all the other
prophetical writings. That Micah views the Davidic family as entirely
sunk at the time of Christ's appearance, we showed in vol. I. p. 508-9.
Compare farther the remarks on Amos ix. 11, and those on Matth. ii. 23
immediately following.--_Hitzig_ is obliged to confess that [Hebrew:
gze] can designate the cut-off stem only; but maintains that Jesse, as
an individual long ago dead, is designated as a cut-off tree. But
against this opinion is the relation which, as we proved, exists
between this verse and the last verses of the preceding chapter; the
undeniable correspondence of [Hebrew: gze] with [Hebrew: gdeiM] in
chap. x. 33. In that case the antithesis also, so evidently intended by
the Prophet, would be altogether lost. It is not by any means a thing
so uncommon, that a man who is already dead should have a glorious
descendant. To this it may further be added that, according to this
supposition, the circumstance is not all accounted for, that Jesse is
mentioned, and not David, the royal ancestor, as is done everywhere
else. _Finally_--In this very forced explanation, the parallel passages
are altogether left out of view, in which likewise the doctrine is
contained that, at the time of Christ's appearance, the Davidic family
should have altogether sunk. The reason of all these futile attempts at
explaining away the sense so evident and obvious, is none other than
the fear of acknowledging in the prophecy an element which goes beyond
the territory of patriotic fancy and human knowledge. But this dark
fear should here so much the more be set aside, that, according to
other passages also, the Prophet undeniably had the knowledge and
conviction that Israel's course would be more and more downward before
it attained, in Christ, to the full height of its destiny. We need
remind only of the prophecies in chap. v. and vi.; and it is so much
the more natural here to compare the latter of them, that, in it, in
ver. 13, Israel, at the time of the appearing of the Messianic Kingdom,
is represented as a felled tree,--a fact which has for its ground the
sinking of the [Pg 104] Davidic race which is here announced. We
farther direct attention to the circumstance that in our prophecy
itself, Israel's being carried away into all the countries of the earth
is foreseen as future,--a circumstance which is so much the more
analogous, that there also, as here, the foreknowledge clothes itself
in the form of the _supposition_ and not of express announcement. With
regard to the latter point, it may still be remarked that Amos also, in
chap. ix. 11, by speaking of the raising up of the tabernacle of David
which is fallen, anticipates its future lowliness.--The question still
arises:--Why is it that the Messiah is here designated as a rod of
Jesse, while elsewhere, His origin is commonly traced back to David?
_Umbreit_ is of opinion that the mention of Jesse may be explained from
the Prophet's desire to trace the pedigree as far back as possible; in
its apparent extinction, the family of the Messiah was to be pointed
out as a _very old_ one. But if this had been his intention, he would
have gone back beyond Jesse to the older ancestors whom the Book of
Ruth mentions; and if he had been so anxious to honour the family of
the Messiah, it would, at all events, have been far more suitable to
mention David than Jesse, who was only one degree removed from him. The
sound view has been long ago given by Calvin, who says: "The Prophet
does not mention David; but rather Jesse. For so much was the dignity
of that family diminished, that it seemed to be a rustic, ignoble
family rather than a royal one." It was appropriate that that family,
upon whom was a second time to be fulfilled the declaration in Ps.
cxiii. 7, 8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; He lifteth up
the needy out of the dunghill, that He may set him with princes,
with the princes of His people,"--in which, the second time, the
transition should take place from the low condition to the royal
dignity, should not be mentioned according to its royal, but according
to its rustic character. This explanation of the fact is confirmed by
the circumstance that it agrees exceedingly well with the right
interpretation of [Hebrew: gze]: Jesse is mentioned and not David,
because the Davidic dignity had become a [Hebrew: gze]. The mention of
Jesse's name thus explained, agrees, then, with the birth of Christ at
Bethlehem, announced by Isaiah's cotemporary, Micah. Christ was to be
born at Bethlehem, because that residence was peculiar to the [Pg 105]
family of David during its lowliness; comp. vol. I., p. 508-9.--The
second hemistich of the verse may either be explained: "a twig from his
roots shall bear fruit," or, as agrees better with the accents: "a twig
shall from his roots bear fruit." The sense, at all events, is: A shoot
proceeding from his roots (_i.e._, the cut-off stem of Jesse) shall
grow up into a stately fruitful tree; or: As a tree cut down throws out
from its roots a young shoot which, at first inconsiderable, grows up
into a stately fruit-bearing tree, so from the family buried in
contempt and lowliness, a _King_ shall arise who, at first humble and
unheeded,[3] shall afterwards attain to great glory. Parallel is Ezek.
xvii. 22-24. The Messiah is there compared to a tender twig which is
planted by the Lord on a high hill, and sends forth branches and bears
fruit, so that all the birds dwell in the shadow of its branches.--It
has now become current to explain: "A branch breaks forth or sprouts;"
but that explanation is against the _usus loquendi_. [Hebrew: prh] is
never equivalent to [Hebrew: prH] "to break forth;" it has only the
signification "to bear," "to bear fruit," "to be fruitful." _Gesenius_
who, in the later editions of his translation, here explains [Hebrew:
prh] by, "to break forth," knows, in the _Thesaurus_, of no other
signification. In the passage of Ezekiel referred to, which may be
considered as a commentary on the verse before us, [Hebrew: ewh pri]
corresponds to the [Hebrew: iprh] here. The change of the tense, too,
suggests that [Hebrew: iprh] does not contain a mere repetition, but a
progress. This progress is necessary for the sense of the whole verse.
For it cannot be the point in question that, in general, a shoot comes
forth; but the point is that this shoot shall attain to importance and
glory. [Hebrew: iprh] comprehends and expresses in one word that which,
in the subsequent verses of the section, is carried out in detail.
First, there is the bestowal of the Spirit of the Lord whereby He is
enabled to bear fruit; then, the fruit-bearing itself.

We here subjoin the discussion of the New Testament passage which
refers to this verse.



[Footnote 1: Their testimony is collected by _Seb. Edzardi_ in the
treatise: _Cap. xi. Esaiae Christo vindicatum adversus Grotium et
sectatores ejus, imprimos Herm. v. d. Hardt._ Hamburg 1696.]

[Footnote 2: "The madness of the Jews is indeed to be lamented who
refer this prophecy to Zerubbabel."]

[Footnote 3: Although _Umbreit_ denies it, yet this is implied in the
designation of the Messiah as a shoot from the roots. Moreover, the
lowliness of the Messiah himself at His appearance is a necessary
consequence of the lowliness of His family; and it is a bad middle
course to acknowledge the latter and deny the former. To this may,
moreover, be added the parallel passage Is. liii. 2.]



[Pg 106]




                           ON MATTHEW II. 23.


[Greek: Kai elthon katokesen eis polin legomenen Nazaret. hopos
plerothe to rhethen dia ton propheton, hoti Nazoraios klethesetai.]

We here premise an investigation as regards the name of the town of
Nazareth. Since that name occurs in the New Testament only, different
views might arise as to its orthography and etymology. One view is
this: The name was properly and originally [Hebrew: ncr]. Being the
name of a town, it received, in Aramean, in addition, the feminine
termination [Hebrew: a]. And, finally, on account of the original
appellative signification of the word, a [Hebrew: t], the designation
of the _status emphaticus_ of feminine nouns in [Hebrew: a], was
sometimes added. We have an analogous case in the name _Dalmanutha_,
the same place which, with the Talmudist, is called [Hebrew: clmvN].
Compare _Lightfoot decas chorog. Marc. praem., opp._ II., p. 411 sqq.
So it is likewise probably that [Greek: gabbatha], [Hebrew: gbta] is
formed from the masculine [Hebrew: gb], _dorsum_. Our view is that the
original name was _Nezer_, that this form of the name was in use along
with that which received a [Hebrew: t] added, and that this [Hebrew: t]
served for the designation of the _status emphaticus_ only; or also, if
we wish to take our stand upon the Hebrew form, was a mere hardening of
the [Hebrew: h] Femin. (either of which suppositions is equally
suitable for our purpose); and this our view we prove by the following
arguments: 1. The testimonies of the Jews. _David de Pomis_ (in _De
Dieu_, _critic. sacr._ on M. II. 23) says: [Hebrew: ncri mi wnvld beir
ncr hglil rHvq mirvwliM drK wlwt imiM] "A Nazarene is he who is born in
the town of _Nezer_, in Galilee, three days'journey from Jerusalem."
In the Talmud, in _Breshith Rabba_, and in _Jalkut Shimeoni_ on Daniel,
the contemptuous name of _Ben Nezer_, _i.e._, the Nazarene, is given to
Christ; compare the passages in _Buxtorf_, _lex. c._ 1383; in
_Lightfoot_, _disquis. chorog. Johan. praem. opp._ II., 578 sqq.;
_Eisenmenger_, I., p. 3139. It is true, _Gieseler_ (on Matth. ii. 23,
and in the _Studien u. Kritiken_, 1831, III. S. 591) has tried to give
a different interpretation to this appellation. He is of opinion that
this appellation has reference to Is. xi. 1; that it had come to the
Jews from the Christians, who called [Pg 107] their Messiah [Hebrew: bN
ncr], because He was He who had been promised by Isaiah. But this
supposition is correct thus far only, that, no doubt, this appellation
was chosen by the Jews with a reference to the circumstance that the
Christians maintained that Jesus was the [Hebrew: ncr] announced by
Isaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also assign to Him the
names [Hebrew: ncr napvP] "adulterous branch," and [Hebrew: ncr nteb]
"abominable branch" (from Is. xiv. 19); comp. _Eisenmenger_ I. S. 137,
138. But _Gieseler_ is wrong in deriving, from this reference to Is.
xi. 1, the origin of the appellation, be it properly or mainly only.
Against that even the very appellation is decisive, for in that case it
ought to have been _Nezer_ only, and not _Ben-Nezer_. _Gieseler_, it is
true, asserts that he in whom a certain prophecy was fulfilled is
called the "Son of the prophecy," and in confirmation of this _usus
loquendi_ he refers to the circumstance that the pseudo-Messiah under
Hadrian assumed, with a reference to the [Hebrew: kvkb] in Numb. xxiv.
17, the name [Hebrew: bN kvkb] or [Hebrew: bN kvkba], in so far as the
star there promised had appeared in him. But this confirmation is only
apparent; it can as little be proved from it, that Christ could be
called _Ben-Nezer_ because He was He in whom the prophecy of the
_Nezer_ was fulfilled, as it can be proved from the appellation _Ben
Nezer_ that that pseudo-Messiah could be called _Bar Cochba_, only
because it was believed that in him the prophecy of the star was
fulfilled. _Reland_ has already proved (Geogr. II. p. 727) that
_Barcochba_ probably had that name because he was a native of Cocab, a
town or district in the country beyond Jordan. And the reason why he
laid such special stress upon that descent was, that he sought a deeper
meaning in this agreement of the name of his birth-place with the
designation of the subject of the prophecy in Numb. xxiv. Moreover the
supposition that, by the Jews, he in whom some prophecy was fulfilled,
was called the son of that prophecy; that, _e.g._, the Messiah, the
Servant of God, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of the Messiah,
&c., is  not only destitute of all foundation, but is, even in itself,
most improbable. To this must still be added the consideration that
this interpretation of _Ben-Nezer_ is opposed by the constant
interpretation of the Jews. _Jarchi_, in a gloss on that passage of the
Talmud referred to, explains _Ben Nezer_ by: "He who has come from the
town of Nazareth." _Abarbanel_ [Pg 108] in his book _Majenehajeshua_,
after having quoted from _Jalkut Shimeoni_ the passage in question,
observes: "Remark well how they have explained the little horn in
Daniel vii. 8, of the _Ben Nezer_ who is Jesus the _Nazarene_." From
the Lexicon _Aruch_ which forms a weighty authority, Buxtorf quotes:
"[Hebrew: ncr ncri hmqll] Nezer, (or Ben Nezer), is the accursed
_Nazarene_." _Finally_--It could not well be supposed that the Jews, in
a contest where they heap the most obnoxious blasphemies on Christ,
should have given Him an honourable epithet which they had simply
received from the Christians.

2. The result which we have obtained is confirmed by the statements of
Christian writers. Even at the time of _Eusebius_ (Hist. Eccles. i. 7),
and of _Jerome_, the place was called _Nazara_. The latter says:
"_Nazareth_: there exists up to this day in Galilee a village opposite
Legio, fifteen miles to the east of it, near Mount Tabor, called
_Nazara_" (comp. _Reland_ i. S. 497). In _Epistol._ xvii. ad
_Marcellum_ he expressly identifies the name with _Nezer_, by saying:
"Let us go to Nazareth, and according to a right interpretation of that
name, we shall see there the flower of Galilee."

3. To this may be added, that the _Gentilitia_ formed from Nazareth can
be explained only when the [Hebrew: t] is not considered as belonging
to the original form of the name. For, in that case, it must
necessarily be found again in the _Gentilitia_, just as, _e.g._, from
[Hebrew: entt] we could not by any means form [Hebrew: enti], but only
[Hebrew: entti]. In the New Testament the two forms [Greek: Nazoraios]
and [Greek: Nazarenos] only occur, never the form [Greek: Nazaretaios].
_Gieseler_ has felt the difficulty which these names present to the
common hypothesis, but has endeavoured (l. c. p. 592) to remove them by
the conjecture that this form, so very peculiar, had been coined by a
consideration of [Hebrew: ncr] which the first Christians were
accustomed to bring into connection with [Hebrew: ncrt]. But this
conjecture would, at most, be admissible, only if, with the Jews too,
the form [Hebrew: ncri] were not found throughout without a [Hebrew:
t], and if the Arabic form also were not entirely analogous.[1]

[Pg 109]

The question now is:--In what sense was [Hebrew: ncr] assigned as a
_nomen proprium_ to a place in Galilee? Certainly, we must at once
reject the supposition of _Jerome_ that Nazareth was thus called, as
being "the flower of Galilee," partly because [Hebrew: ncr] never
occurs in this signification; partly because it is not conceivable that
the place received a name which is due to it [Greek: kat'anti phrasin]
only. It is much more probable that the place received the name on
account of its smallness: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree.
In this signification [Hebrew: ncr] occurs in Is. xi. 1, xiv. 19, and
in the Talmudical _usus loquendi_ where [Hebrew: ncrim] signifies
"_virgulta salicum decorticata, vimina ex quibus corbes fiunt._" There
was so much the greater reason for giving the place this name that
people had the symbol before their eyes in its environs; for the
chalk-hills around Nazareth are over-grown with low bushes (comp.
Burkhardt II. s. 583). That which these bushes were when compared with
the stately trees which adorned other parts of the country, Nazareth
was when compared with other cities.

This _nomen_ given to the place on account of its small beginnings,
resembling, in this respect, the name of Zoar, _i.e._, a small town,
was, at the same time, an _omen_ of its future condition. The weak twig
never grew up into a tree. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Nazareth
mentioned, probably because it was built only after the return from the
captivity. Neither is it mentioned in _Josephus_. It was not, like most
of the other towns in Palestine, ennobled by any recollection from the
olden times. Yea, as it would appear, a special contempt was resting
upon it, besides the general contempt in which all Galilee was held;
just as every land has some place to which a disgrace attaches, which
has often been called forth by causes altogether trifling. This appears
not only from the question of Nathanael, in John i. 47: "Can there any
good thing come out of Nazareth?" but also from the fact, that from the
most ancient times the Jews thought to inflict upon Christ the greatest
disgrace, by calling Him the Nazarene, whilst, in later times, the
disgrace which rested on all Galilee [Pg 110] was removed by the
circumstance that the most celebrated Jewish academy, that of Tiberias,
belonged to it.

Let us now examine in how far Christ's abode at Nazareth served the
purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy. It is, throughout,
the doctrine of the prophets, that the Messiah, descending from the
family of David, sunk into utter lowliness, would at first appear
without any outward rank and dignity. The fundamental type for all
other passages here concerned is contained in that passage of Is. xi.
1, now under consideration: "And there cometh forth a twig from the
stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit," which is
strikingly illustrated in the following words of _Quenstedt_, in his
_Dissertatio de Germine Jehovae_, in the _Thesaurus theol. philol._ I.
p. 1015: "The stem of Jesse which, from low beginnings, was, in David,
raised to the glory of royal majesty, shall then not only be deprived
of all royal dignity, and all outward splendour which it received in
David, but shall again have been reduced to the private condition in
which it was before David; so that it shall present the appearance of a
stem deprived of all boughs and foliage, and having nothing left but
the roots; nevertheless out of that stem thus reduced and cut off, and,
as it appeared, almost dry, shall come forth a royal rod, and out of
its roots shall grow the twig upon whom shall rest the Spirit of the
Lord," &c. Quite in harmony with this, it is said in chap. liii. 2: "He
grew up before the Lord as a tender twig, and as a root out of a dry
ground." To [Hebrew: ncr], in chap. xi., corresponds [Hebrew: ivnq] in
chap. liii.; to [Hebrew: HTr] the [Hebrew: wrw]; to the cut-off stem
the dry land, with this difference, however, that by the latter
designation, the low condition of the Servant of God, generally, is
indicated; but His descent from the family of David sunk in lowliness,
is not specially pointed at thereby, although it is necessarily implied
in it. The same thought is further carried out in Ezek. xvii. 22-24. As
the descendant of the family of David sank in lowliness, the Messiah
appears in that passage as a small tender twig which is taken by the
Lord from a high cedar, and, being planted upon a high mountain, growls
up into a lofty tree, under which all the fowls dwell. In Jeremiah and
Zechariah, the Messiah, with reference to the image of a cut-off tree
used by Isaiah, is called the Sprout of David, or simply the Sprout;
[Pg 111] compare remarks on Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. All that is here
required is certainly only to place beside one another, on the one
hand, prophecy, and, on the other, history, in order clearly and
evidently to point out the fulfilment of the former in the latter. It
was not at Jerusalem, where there was the seat of His royal ancestor,
where there were the thrones of His house (comp. Ps. cxxii.), that the
Messiah took up his residence; but it was in the most despised place of
the most despised province that, by divine Providence, He received His
residence, after the predictions of the prophets had been fulfilled by
His having been born at Bethlehem. The name of that place by which His
lowliness was designated was the same as that by which Isaiah had
designated the lowliness of the Messiah at His appearing.

We have hitherto considered prophecy and fulfilment independently of
the quotation by St. Matthew. Let us now add a few remarks upon the
latter.

1. It seems not to have been without reason that the wider formula of
quotation: [Greek: to rhethen dia ton propheton] is here chosen,
although _Jerome_ infers too much from it when he remarks: "If he had
wished to refer to a distinct quotation from Scripture, he would never
have said: 'As was spoken by the prophets,'but simply, 'as was said by
the prophet.'By using prophets in the plural, he shows that it is the
sense, and not the words which he has taken from Scripture." No doubt
St. Matthew has one passage chiefly in view--that in Is. xi. 1, which,
besides the general announcement of the Messiah's lowliness, contains,
in addition, a special designation of it which is found again in the
_nomen_ and _omen_ of his native place. This appears especially from
the circumstance that, if it were otherwise, the quotation: in [Greek:
hoti Nazoraios klethestai], would be inexplicable, since it is very
forced to suppose that "Nazarene" here designates generally one low and
despised.[2] But he chose the general formula of [Pg 112] quotation
(comp. _Gersdorf_, _Beitraege zur Sprachcharacteristik_ 1. S. 136), in
order thereby to intimate that in Christ's residence at Nazareth those
prophecies, too, were at the same time fulfilled, which, in the
essential point--in the announcement of Christ's lowliness--agree with
that of Isaiah. But it is just this additional reference which shows
that, to Matthew, this was indeed the essential point, and that the
agreement of the name of the town with the name which Christ has in
Isaiah, appears to him only as a remarkable outward representation of
the close connection of prophecy and fulfilment; just as, indeed, every
thing in the life of Christ appears to be brought about by the special
direction of Divine providence.

2. The phrase [Greek: hoti klethesetai] likewise is explained from the
circumstance that Matthew does not restrict himself to the passage Is.
xi. 1, but takes in, at the same time, all those other passages which
have a similar meaning. From among them, it was from Zech. vi. 12:
"Behold a man whose name is the Sprout," that the phrase [Greek: hoti
klethesetai] flowed. There is hence no necessity for explaining this
circumstance solely from the custom of the later Jews,[3] of claiming
as the names of the Messiah all those expressions by which, in the Old
Testament, His nature is designated, inasmuch as, in doing so, they
followed the custom of the prophets themselves, who frequently bring
forward as the name of the Messiah that which is merely one of His
attributes. This hypothesis is inadmissible, because otherwise it would
be difficult to point out any case in which the Evangelists had not
admixed something of their own with a quotation which they announced as
a literal one.

[Pg 113]

Ver. 2. "_And the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon Him, the Spirit of
wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit
of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord._"

The Spirit of the Lord is the general, the principle; and the
subsequent terms are the single forms in which he manifests himself,
and works. But, on the other hand, in a formal point of view, the
Spirit of the Lord is just co-ordinate with the Spirit of wisdom, &c.
Some, indeed, explain: the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of, &c.;
but that this is inadmissible appears with sufficient evidence from
the circumstance that, by such a view, the sacred number, seven,
is destroyed, which, with evident intention, is completed in the
enumeration; compare the _seven_ spirits of God in Rev. i. 4. To have
the Spirit is the necessary condition of every important and effective
ministry in the Kingdom of God, from which salvation is to come forth;
comp. Num. xxvii. 18. It is especially the blessed administration of
the regal office which depends upon the possession of the Spirit; comp.
1 Sam. xvi. 13 ff. where it is said of David: "And Samuel took the horn
of oil and anointed him: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him
from that day forward;" comp. 1 Sam. x. 6, 10. The circumstance that
the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon the Messiah does not form a
contradiction to His _divine nature_, which is intimated by his being
born of the Virgin, chap. vii. 14, by the name [Hebrew: al gbvr] in
chap. ix. 5, and elsewhere (comp. Vol. I., p. 490, 491), and is
witnessed even in this prophecy itself; but, on the contrary, the
pouring out of the Spirit fully and not by measure (John iii. 39) which
is here spoken of, _implies_ the divine nature. In order to receive the
Spirit of God in such a measure that He could baptize with the Holy
Spirit (John i. 33), that out of His fulness all received (John i. 16),
that, in consequence of His fulness of the Spirit overflowing from Him
to the Church, the earth could be filled with the knowledge of the Lord
as the waters covering the sea (ver. 9), He could not but be highly
exalted above human nature. It was just because they remained limited
to the insufficient substratum of human nature, that even the best
kings, that even David, the man after God's own heart, received the
Spirit in a scanty measure only, and were constantly in danger of [Pg
114] losing again that which they possessed, as is shown by David's
pitiful prayer: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Ps. li. 13). It was
just for this reason, therefore, that the theocracy possessed in the
kings a very sufficient organ of its realization, and that the stream
of the divine blessings could not flow freely. In Matt. iii. 16:
[Greek: kai eide to pneuma tou theou katabainon hosei peristeran kai
erchomenon ep'auton], it is not the passage before us only which lies
at the foundation, but also, and indeed pre-eminently, the parallel
passage, chap. xlii. 1: "Behold my Servant whom I uphold, mine Elect in
whom my soul delighteth; I put my Spirit upon Him," as is apparent from
the circumstance that it is to this passage that the voice from heaven
refers in Matt. iii. 17: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapetos
en ho eudokesa]. But a reference to the passage before us we meet most
decidedly in John i. 32, 33: [Greek: Tetheamai to pneuma katabainon
hosei peristeran ex ouranou, kai emeinen ep'auton. Kago ouk edein
auton. all'ho pempsas me baptizein en hudati, ekeinos moi eipen. eph'hon
an ides to pneuma katabainon kai menon ep'auton, houtos estin ho
baptizon en pneumati hagio]. The word [Hebrew: nvH], which in Numb. xi.
25 also is used of the Spirit, combines in itself both the [Greek:
katabainein] and the [Greek: menein]; it is _requiescere_. As the
fulfilment of this prophecy, however, we must not look to that event
only where it received a symbolical representation, but also to Acts
ii. 3: [Greek: kai ophthesan autois diamerizomenai glossai hosei puros,
ekathise te eph'hena hekaston auton]; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 14: [Greek:
hote to tes doxes kai to tou theou pneuma eph'humas anapauetai] (this
most exactly answers [Hebrew: nvH]). For it is not merely for himself
that Christ here receives the Spirit; but He receives Him as the
transforming principle for the human race; He is bestowed upon. Him as
the Head of the Church.--In the enumeration of the forms in which the
Spirit manifests himself, it was not the intention of the Prophet to
set forth _all_ the perfections of the Messiah; he rather, by way of
example, mentions some only after having comprehended all of them in
the general: The Spirit of the Lord. Thus, _e.g._, _justice_, which is
mentioned immediately afterwards in ver. 5, is omitted here.--The first
pair are wisdom and understanding. _Wisdom_ is that excellency of
knowledge which rests on moral perfection. It is opposed to [Hebrew:
nblh], foolishness in a moral sense, which may easily be combined with
the greatest ingenuity and cleverness. The excellence of knowledge
resting [Pg 115] on a moral basis manifests itself in the first
instance, and preeminently, in the [Hebrew: binh], understanding, the
sharp and penetrating eye which beholds things as they are, and
penetrates from the surface to their hidden essence, undisturbed by the
dense fogs of false notions and illusions which, in the case of the
fool, are formed by his lusts and passions. Neither of these attributes
can, in its absolute perfection, be the possession of any mortal,
because even in those who, morally, are most advanced, there ever
remains sin, and, therefore, a darkening of the knowledge.--The second
pair, counsel and might, are, just as in the passage before us,
ascribed to the Messiah in chap. ix. 5 (6), by His receiving the names
"Wonder-Counsellor," "God-Hero." From chap. xxxvi. 5 it is seen that,
for the difficult circumstances of the struggle, _counsel_ is of no
less consequence than _might_. The last pair, knowledge and fear of the
Lord, form the fundamental effect of the Spirit of the Lord; all the
great qualities of the soul, all the gifts which are beneficial for the
Kingdom of God, rest on the intimacy of the connection with God which
manifests itself in living knowledge and fear of the Lord; the latter
not being the servile but the filial fear, not opposed to love, but its
constant companion. The Prophet has put this pair at the close, only
because he intends to connect with it that which immediately follows.
We have already remarked that the Spirit of the Lord, &c., is bestowed
upon the Messiah not for himself alone, but as the renovating principle
of the Church.--Old Testament analogies and types are not wanting in
this matter. Moses puts of his spirit upon the seventy Elders, and the
spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha, and likewise on the whole crowd of
disciples who gathered around him (2 Kings ii. 9).

Ver. 3. "_And He hath His delight in the fear of the Lord, and not
after the sight of His eyes doth He judge, nor after the hearing of His
ears doth He decide._"

We now learn how the glorious gifts of the Anointed, described in ver.
2, are displayed in His government. All attempts to bring the second
and third clauses under the same point of view as the first, and to
derive them from the same source are in vain. That He has delight in
the fear of the Lord, is the consequence of the Spirit of knowledge and
of the fear of the Lord resting upon Him,--He loves what is congenial
[Pg 116] to His own nature. That He does not judge after the sight of
His eyes, &c., is the consequence of His having the Spirit of wisdom
and understanding. It is thereby that He is freed from the narrow
superficiality which is natural to man, and raised to the sphere of
that divine clearness of vision which penetrates to the depths,
[Hebrew: hriH] with the accusative is "to smell something;" with
[Hebrew: b], to "smell at something," "to smell with delight." The fear
of the Lord appears as something of a sweet scent to the Messiah. The
other explanations of the first clause abandon the sure, ascertained
_usus loquendi_ (comp. Exod. xxx. 38; Levit. xxvi. 31; Am. v. 21), and,
therefore, do not deserve any mention. On the second and third clauses
1 Sam. xvi. 7, is to be compared: "And the Lord said unto Samuel: Look
not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature, because I have
refused him; for not that which man looks at (do I look at); for man
looketh on the eyes (and, in general, on the outward appearance), and I
look on the heart." It is especially John who repeatedly mentions that
Christ really possessed the gift here assigned to Him, of judging, not
from the first appearance, and according to untrustworthy information,
but of penetrating into the innermost ground of the facts and persons,
comp. ii. 24, 25: [Greek: autos de Iesous, ouk episteuen heauton
autois, dia to auton ginoskein pantas, kai hoti ou chreian eichen hina
tis marturese peri tou anthropou. autos gar eginoske ti en hen
anthropo.] Farther--chap. xxi. 17 where Peter says to Christ: [Greek:
Kurie su panta oidas. su ginoskeis hoti philo se.] Farther, i. 48, 49;
iv. 18, 19; vi. 64. In Revel. ii. 23, Christ says: "And all Churches
shall know that I am He which searcheth the reins and hearts."

Ver. 4. "_And He judgeth in righteousness the lowly, and doeth justice
in equity to the meek of the earth, and smiteth the earth with the rod
of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked._"

The King shall be adorned with perfect justice, and, in the exercise of
it, be supported by His omnipotence,--differently from what was the
case with David, who, for want of power, was obliged to allow heinous
crimes to pass unpunished (2 Sam. iii. 39). Just as by the excellency
of His _will_ He is infinitely exalted above all former rulers, so is
He also by the excellency of _might_. Where, as in His case, the
highest [Pg 117] might stands in the service of the best will, the
noblest results must come forth. The first two clauses refer to Ps.
lxxii., which was written by Solomon, and where, in ver. 2, it is said
of Christ: "He shall judge thy people in righteousness, and thy lowly
ones in judgment," and in ver. 4: "He shall judge the lowly of thy
people, He shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in
pieces the oppressors;" compare farther Prov. xxix. 14: "A king that in
truth judgeth the lowly, his throne shall be established for ever." The
earth forms the contrast to the limited territory which was hitherto
assigned to the theocratic kings.--In the second part of the verse
[Hebrew: arC] does not by any means stand in contrast to [Hebrew: dliM]
and [Hebrew: enviM], and, in parallelism to [Hebrew: rwe], designate
the wicked ones; but [Hebrew: arC] "earth" stands in antithesis to the
narrow territory in which earthly kings are permitted to dispense law
and justice. It is a matter of course, and is, moreover, expressly
stated in the second clause, that the earth comes into consideration
with a view to those only who are objects of His judging activity. From
that which follows, where changes are spoken of which shall take place
on the whole earth, it follows that [Hebrew: arC] must be taken in the
signification of "earth." and not of "land." Hand in hand with the
infinite extent of the King's exercise of justice goes also the manner
of it. "The whole earth," and the "breath of the mouth," correspond
with one another.--In the words "with the rod of His mouth," a tacit
antithesis lies at the foundation. As kings strike with the sceptre, so
He smiteth with His mouth.--[Hebrew: wbT], the ensign of royal dignity,
is the symbol of the whole earthly power, which, being external and
exercised by external means, must needs be limited, and insufficient
for the perfect exercise of justice. The exercise of justice on the
part of earthly kings reaches so far only as their hand armed with the
smiting sceptre. But that great King is, in the exercise of justice,
supported by His _Omnipotence_. He punishes and destroys by His mere
word. Several interpreters understand this as a mere designation of His
severity in punishing,--"the rod of His mouth" to be equivalent to
"severity of punishment;"--but that such is not the meaning appears
from the following clause, where likewise special weight is attached to
the circumstance that the Messiah inflicts punishment by His mere word;
"the breath of His lips" is equivalent [Pg 118] to "mere words," "mere
command;" compare "breath of His mouth," in Ps. xxxiii. 6. _Hitzig's_
explanation, "the angry breath of His lips," does not interpret, but
interpolate. In the future Son of David every word is, at the same
time, a deed; He speaks and it is done. The same which is here said of
the Messiah is, in other passages, attributed to _God_: compare Job xv.
30, where it is said of the wicked: "By the breath of His mouth he
shall go away;" Hos. vi. 5: "I have slain them by the word of my
mouth." In general, according to the precedent in Gen. i., doing by the
mere word is, in Scripture, the characteristic designation of Divine
Omnipotence. Parallel is chap. xlix. 2, where Christ says: "And He hath
made my mouth like a sharp sword," equivalent to: He has endowed me
with His Omnipotence, so that my word also exercises destructive
effect, just as His. In Rev. i. 16, it is said of Christ: "And out of
His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,"--to designate the destructive
power of His word borne by Omnipotence, the omnipotent punitive power
of Christ against enemies, both internal and external. An instance of
the manner in which Christ smites by the word of His mouth is offered
by Acts v. 3 (where, according to the analogy of the word spoken in the
name of God by Elijah, 2 Kings i. 10, 12, and by Elisha, 2 Kings ii.
24, v. 27, the Apostles are to be considered only as His instruments):
[Greek: akouon de Ananias tous logous toutous peson exepsuxe], comp.
ver. 10; xiii. 11. The Chaldee translates: "And by the word of His lips
wicked Armillus shall die." He refers [Hebrew: rwe] not to the ideal
person of the wicked, but to an individual, _Armillus_, ([Greek:
eremolaos], corresponding to the name of Balaam, compounded of [Hebrew:
ble] "devouring," "destruction," and [Hebrew: eM] "people") the
formidable, last enemy of the Jews who shall carry on severe wars with
them, slay the Messiah ben Joseph, but at length be slain by the
Messiah ben David with a mere word, compare _Buxtorf_, _Lex. Chald._
cap. 221-224: _Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 705 ff. In 2
Thess. ii. 8, in the description of Antichrist's destruction by Christ:
[Greek: hon ho Kurios Iesous analosei to pneumati tou stomatos autou],
there is an intentional and significant allusion to the passage before
us, Antichrist there being, like [Hebrew: rwe] here, an ideal person;
for the arguments in proof, see my Comment, on Revelation, vol. ii.

Ver. 5. "_And righteousness is the girdle of His loins, and
faithfulness the girdle of His reins._"

[Pg 119]

Righteousness and faithfulness are in a similar manner connected in 1
Sam. xxvi. 13 (? Prov. xii. 17). Faithfulness is trustworthiness. The
point of comparison with the girdle is the closeness of the union;
comp. Ps. cix. 19; Jer. xiii. 1, 2, 11.

In ver. 6, the Prophet passes from the _person_ of the glorious King to
a description of His Kingdom. With regard to ver. 6-8, the question
arises, whether the description is to be understood figuratively or
literally; whether the Prophet intends to describe the cessation
of all hostility among men, or whether he expected that, in the
Messianic time, even among the irrational creation, all hostility and
destruction, every thing pernicious was to cease. Most of the ancient
interpreters are attached to the former view. Thus _Theodoret_ says:
"In a figurative manner, under the image of domesticated and wild
animals, the Prophet taught the change of the habits of men." He refers
every thing to the union, within the Christian Church, of those who, in
their natural condition, lived far separated from one another, and in
hostility the one to the other. _Jerome_ considers the opposite view as
even a species of heresy. He says: "The Jews and the Judaizers among
ourselves maintain that all this shall be fulfilled according to the
letter; that in the light of Christ who, they believe, shall come at
the end of the days, all beasts shall be reduced to tameness, so that
the wolf, giving up its former ferocity, shall dwell with the lamb,
&c." Upon the whole, he states the sense in the same manner as
_Theodoret_, from whom he sometimes differs in the allegorical
explanation of the details only. In a similar manner _Luther_ also
explains it, who, _e.g._, on ver. 6, "the wolf shall dwell with the
lambs, etc." remarks: "But these are allegories by which the Prophet
intimates that the tyrants, the self-righteous and powerful ones in the
world, shall be converted, and be received into the Church." _Calvin_
says: "By these images, the Prophet indicates that, among the people of
Christ there will be no disposition for injuring one another, nor any
ferocity or inhumanity." The circumstance that the use of animal
symbolism is widely spread throughout Scripture is in favour of this
interpretation. One may, _e.g._ compare Ps. xxii., where the enemies of
the righteous are represented under the image of dogs, lions, bulls,
and unicorns; [Pg 120] Jer. v. 6, where, by lion, wolf, and leopard,
the kingdoms of the world which are destructive to the people of God
are designated; the four beasts in Dan. vii.; but especially Is. xxxv.
9: "There (on the way of salvation which the Lord shall, in the future,
open up for His people) shall not be a lion, nor shall any ravenous
beast go up thereon,"--where the ravenous beasts are the
representatives of the world's power, hostile to the Kingdom of God.
Nevertheless, the literal interpretation, defended by several Jewish
expositors, maintains an undeniable preference. In favour of it are the
following arguments: 1. The circumstance that it is impossible to carry
through, in the details, the figurative interpretation; and it is by
this that our passage is distinguished from all the other passages in
which the wild, cruel, and destructive tendencies in the human sphere
appear under the images of their representatives in the animal world.
The supposition that "we have here before us only a poetical
enlargement of the thought that all evil shall cease" (_Hendewerk_,
_Knobel_), removes the boundaries which separate prophecy from poetry.
2. The parallelism with the condition of the creation before the fall,
as it is described to us by Holy Scripture. It is certainly not without
reason that, in the account of the creation, so much emphasis is laid
on the circumstance that all which was created was _good_. This implies
a condition of the irrational creation different from what it is now;
for in its present state it gives us a faithful copy of the first fall,
inasmuch as every heinous vice has its symbols and representatives in
the animal kingdom. According to Gen. ii. 19, 20, the animals recognize
in Adam their lord and king, peaceably gather around him, and receive
their names from him. According to Gen. i. 30, grass only was assigned
to animals for their food; the whole animal world bore the image of the
innocence and peace of the first man, and was not yet pervaded by the
law of mutual destruction. Where there was not a Cain, neither was
there a lion. The serpent has not yet its disgusting and horrible
figure, and fearlessly men have intercourse with it; comp. Vol. i. p.
15, 16. But the influence of sin pervaded and penetrated the whole
nature, and covered it with a curse (comp. Gen. iii. 17-19); so that it
not only bears evidence to the existence of God, but also to the
existence of sin. [Pg 121] Now, as it is by sin that outward discord,
and contention, and destruction _arose_ in the irrational creature, so
we may also expect that, when the cause has been removed, the effect
too will disappear; that, with the cessation of the discord and enmity
among men, which, according to ver. 9, the Prophet expected of the
Messianic time, discord and enmity in the animal world will cease also.
In the individual features, the Prophet seems even distinctly to refer
to the history of the creation; compare ver. 7: "The lion shall eat
straw like the ox," with Gen. i. 30; ver. 8: "the sucking child shall
play on the hole of the asp," with Gen. iii. 15. 3. The comparison of
other passages of Scripture, according to which likewise the reflection
of the evil in the irrational creation shall cease, after the evil has
been removed from the rational creation; compare chap. lxv. 25, lxvi,
22; Matt. xix. 28, where the Lord speaks of the [Greek: palingenesia],
the return of the whole earthly creation to its original condition;
but especially Rom. viii. 19 ff.--that classical passage of the
New Testament which is really parallel to the passage before us. 4.
A subordinate argument is still offered by the parallel descriptions
of heathen writers. From the passages collected by _Clericus_, _Lowth_,
and _Gesenius_, we quote a few only. In the description of the
golden age, _Virgil_ says, _Ecl._ iv. 21 sqq.; v. 60: _Occidet et
serpens et fallax herba veneni occidet._--_Nec magnos metuent armenta
leones._--_Nec lupus insidias pecori._ _Horat. Epod._ xiv. 53: _Nec
vespertinus circumgemit ursus ovile nec intumescit alta viperis
humus._--_Theocrit. Idyll._ xxiv. 84. Utterances such as these show how
unnatural the present condition of the earth is. They are, however, not
so much to be regarded as the remains of some outward tradition
(against such a supposition it is decisive that they occur chiefly with
_poets_), but rather as utterances of an indestructible longing in man,
which, being so deeply rooted in human nature, contains in itself the
guarantee of being gratified at some future period. But, with all this,
we must do justice to the objection drawn from the evident parallelism
of passages such as chap. xxxv. 9, and to another objection advanced by
_Vitringa_, that it is strange that there is so much spoken of animals,
and so little of men. This we shall do by remarking that, in the
description of the glorious effects which the government of Christ
shall produce on the earth, the Prophet at once proceeds to the utmost
limit of [Pg 122] them; and that the removal of hostility and
destruction from the irrational creation implies that all that will be
removed which, in the rational creation, proceeds from the principle of
hatred, inasmuch as it is certain that the former is only a reflection
of the latter, and that the Prophet speaks with a distinct reference to
this supposition which he afterwards, in ver. 9, distinctly expresses.
Hence, to a certain degree, a double sense takes place; and, in the
main, _J. H. Michaelis_ has hit the right by comparing, first, Gen. i.
and Rom. viii., and then continuing: "Parabolically, however, by the
wild beasts, wild and cruel nations are understood, which are to be
converted to Christ; or violent men who, by the Spirit of Christ, are
rendered meek and gentle, just as Paul, from a wolf, was changed into a
lamb." We are the less permitted to lose sight of the reference to the
lions and bears on the spiritual territory, that ver. 6 is, in the
first instance, connected with vers. 4 and 5, in which the all-powerful
sway of Christ's justice on earth is described, of which the
consequences must, in the first instance, appear in the _human
territory_; and, farther, that the point from which the prophecy
started, is the raging of the wolf and bear of the world's power
against the poor defenceless flock of the Lord.

Ver. 6. "_And the wolf dwelleth with the lamb, and the leopard shall
lie down with the kid, the calf, and, the lion and the fatling
together, and a little child leads them._"

Ver. 7. "_The cow and bear go to the pasture; their young ones lie down
together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox._" (The going to
pasture of the bear corresponds with the lion's eating straw [comp.
Gen. i. 30], and we are not allowed to supply the "together" in the
first clause.)

Ver. 8. "_And the sucking child playeth on the hole of the asp, and the
weaned child putteth his hand into the den of the basilisk._"

The change in the irrational creation described in the preceding verses
is a consequence of the removal of sin in the rational creation; this
removal the Prophet now proceeds to describe.

Ver. 9. "_They shall not do evil, and shall not sin in all my holy
mountain, for the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord, as the
waters covering the sea._"

[Pg 123]

The subject are the dwellers in the Holy Mountain. The Holy Mountain
can, according to the _usus loquendi_, be Mount Zion only, and not, as
was last maintained by _Hofmann_, the whole land of Canaan, which is
never designated in that manner; comp. chap. xxvii. 13, and my
Commentary on Ps. lxxviii. 54. The second part of the verse, connected
with the first by means of _for_, agrees with the first only in the
event that Mount Zion is viewed as the spiritual dwelling place of the
inhabitants of the earth, just as, under the Old Testament
dispensation, it was the _ideal_ dwelling place of all the Israelites,
even of those who outwardly had not their residence at Jerusalem; on
the spiritual dwelling of the servants of the Lord with Him in the
temple, compare remarks on Ps. xxvii. 4, xxxvi. 9, lxv. 5, lxxxiv. 3,
and other passages. In chap. ii. 2-4, lxvi. 23, the Holy Mountain, too,
appears as the centre of the whole earth in the Messianic time. From
chap. xix. 20, 21, where, in the midst of converted Egypt, an altar is
built, and sacrifices are offered up, it appears that it is this in an
_ideal_ sense only, that under its image the _Church_ is meant. The
designation, "my Holy Mountain," intimates that the state of things
hitherto, when unholiness prevailed in the Kingdom of the Holy God, is
an unnatural one; that at some future period the _idea_ necessarily
must manifest its power and right in opposition to the _reality_.--In
the second clause, the ground and fountain of this sinlessness is
stated. In Zion, in the Church of God, there will then be no more any
sins; for the earth is then full of the knowledge of the Lord, by which
the sins are done away with. The general outpouring of the Holy Ghost
forms one of the characteristics of the Messianic time; and the
_consequence_ of this outpouring is, according to ver. 2, the knowledge
of the Lord,--so that the clause may be thus paraphrased: For, in
consequence of the Spirit poured out, in the first instance, upon Him,
the earth is full of the knowledge of the Lord; comp. chap. xxxii. 15:
"Until the Spirit be poured upon us from on high;" liv. 13; Joel iii.
1; ii. 28; Jer. xxxi. 34, That [Hebrew: harC] is here not the "land,"
or "country," but the "_earth_" is sufficiently evident from the
antithesis of the _sea_: as the _sea_ is full of water, so the _earth_
is full of the knowledge of the Lord. To this [Pg 124] reason it may
still be added that in vers. 6-8 changes are spoken of, which concern
the whole territory of the earthly creation, the [Greek: palingenesia]
of the whole earth. As the relation of these changes to that which is
stated here is that of cause and effect, here, too, the whole earth can
only be thought of _Finally_,--The following verse too supposes the
spreading of salvation over the whole earth. The entire relation of the
first section to the second and third makes it obvious that by [Hebrew:
harC] the whole earth is to be understood. The passage under
consideration is alluded to in Hab. ii. 14: "For the earth shall be
filled with the knowledge of the glory of the Lord as the waters
covering the sea." In that passage, the enforced knowledge of the
Divine glory which manifests itself in punitive justice, forms the
subject of discourse; but that enforced knowledge forms the necessary
condition of the knowledge which is voluntary and saving.

_Ver. 10. "And it shall come to pass in that day, the root of Jesse
which standeth for an ensign to the people, it shall the Gentiles seek,
and His rest is glory._"

The words, "and it shall come to pass," introduce a new section; so
that the interval in the Hebrew manuscripts is here quite in its place.
With ver. 11 again, a new section begins. In ver. 1-9 we have the
appearance of the Messiah in relation to the whole earth; then, in the
second section, the way in which he becomes a centre to the whole
_Gentile world_; and in ver. 11 ff., what He grants to the _old
covenant-people_, for whom the Prophet was, in the first instance,
prophesying, and whose future he therefore describes more in detail.
Why His relation to the Gentile world is _first spoken of_ appears from
ver. 12; the Gentiles gathered to the Lord are the medium of His
salvation to the old covenant-people.--The _root_ designates here (and
likewise in chap. liii. 2), and in the passages founded upon this,
viz., in Rev. v. 5, xxii. 16, the _product_ of the root, that whereby
the root manifests itself, the shoot from the root; just as "seed" so
very often occurs for "product of the seed." This appears from a
comparison with ver. 1, where, more fully, the Messiah is called a
twig from Jesse's roots. _Bengel_ has already directed attention to
the antithesis of the root and ensign, in his Commentary on Rom. xv.
12: "A sweet antithesis: the root is undermost, [Pg 125] the ensign
rises uppermost; so that even the nations farthest off may behold
it."--[Hebrew: drw] with [Hebrew: l], [Hebrew: al], and [Hebrew: at],
has the signification "to apply to the true God, or some imaginary god,
in order to seek protection, help, counsel, advice, disclosures
regarding the future;" comp. Is. viii. 19; Deut. xii. 4, 5, and other
passages in _Gesenius'Thesaurus_. The Gentiles feel that they cannot
do without the Redeemer; they see, at the same time, His riches and
their poverty; and this knowledge urges them on to _seek_ Him, that
from him they may obtain _light_ (chap. xlii. 6), that He may
communicate to them His _law_ (chap. xlii. 4), that he may teach them
of His ways, and that they may walk in His paths (chap. ii. 3), &c. St.
Paul, in Rom. xv. 12, following the LXX., has [Greek: ep'auto ethne
elpiousi], which, as regards the sense, fully agrees with the original.
The beginning of the seeking took place when the representatives of the
Gentile world, the Maji from the East, came to Jerusalem, saying:
"Where is He that is born King of the Jews? For we have seen His star
in the East and are come to worship Him," Matt. ii. 2. The historical
foundation and the type are the homage which, from the Gentile world,
was offered to Solomon, 1 Kings x.--[Hebrew: mnvHh] "resting place,"
"dwelling place," "habitation;" comp. Ps. cxxxii. 13, 14: "For the Lord
hath chosen Zion; He hath desired it for His _habitation_. This is my
_rest_ ([Hebrew: mnvHti]) for ever; here will I _dwell_, for I have
desired it." The glory of the King passes over to His residence to
which the Gentile world are flowing together, in order to do homage to
Him; Comp. Ps. lxxii. 10: "The kings of Tarshish and of the isles shall
bring presents; the kings of Sheba and Seba shall offer gifts." The
comparison of this passage alone is sufficient to refute the absurd
interpretation, according to which [Hebrew: emiM] and [Hebrew: gviM]
are referred to the Israelitish tribes,--an interpretation which has
been tried with as little success in the fundamental passage (Gen.
xlix. 10), according to which the [Hebrew: emiM] are to adhere to
Shiloh; compare Vol. i. p. 62.

Ver. 11: "_And it shall come to pass in that day, the Lord shall
continue a second time with His hand to ransom the remnant of His
people which has remained from Asshur and from Egypt, from Patros and
from Cush, from Elam and from Shinar, from Hamath and from the islands
of the sea._"

[Pg 126]

From the Gentiles, the Prophet now turns to Israel. The reception of
the Gentiles into the Messianic Kingdom is not by any means to take
place at the expense of the old covenant-people; even they shall be
brought back again, and shall be received into the Kingdom of God.
[Hebrew: ivsiP] must be connected with [Hebrew: lqnvt], comp. 2 Sam.
xxiv. 1: "And the Lord continued to kill," [Hebrew: lhrg]. It is
unnecessary and arbitrary to supply [Hebrew: lwlH]. [Hebrew: idv] is
Accusative, "as to His hand," equivalent to "with His hand;" comp. Ps.
iii. 5, xvii. 10, 11, 13, 14. Just the hand of God, which here comes
into consideration as the instrument of _doing_, is repeatedly
mentioned in the account of the deliverance from Egypt; comp. Exod.
iii. 20, vii. 4, xiii. 9. The expression: "_He shall continue_," in
general, points out the idea that it is not a new beginning which is
here concerned, but the continuation of former acting, by which
believing was rendered so much the more easy. The expression, "a
_second time_," points more distinctly to the type of the _deliverance
from Egypt_ with which the redemption to be effected by Christ is
frequently paralleled; comp. vers. 15, 16; Vol. i. p. 218, 219. "_From
Asshur_," &c., must not be connected with [Hebrew: lqnvt], but with
[Hebrew: iwar], comp. v. 16, those who have remained from Asshur, &c.,
_i.e._, those whom Asshur and the other places of punishment, with
their hostile influences, have left, who have been preserved in them.
The fact that destructive influences may proceed from those nations
also which do not properly belong to the number of the kingdoms of the
world, is plainly shown by the history of the Jews after Christ. It
would be against the accents, both here and in ver. 6, to connect it
with [Hebrew: lqnvt]; the words "which shall remain" would, in that
case, appear to be redundant; and, farther, it is opposed by Exod. x.
3: "And eats the residue of that which is escaped, which remaineth unto
you from the hail," equivalent to; which the hail has left to you.
Similar to this is 2 Chron. xxx. 6, where Hezekiah exhorts the children
of Israel: "Turn again unto the Lord.... in order that He may again
return to the remnant which has been left to you from the hand of the
kings of Asshur." A question here arises, viz., whether the dispersion
of Israel which is here described, had already taken place at the time
of the Prophet, or whether the Prophet, transferring himself in the
Spirit into [Pg 127] the distant future, describes the dispersion which
took place at a later period, after the carrying away of the ten tribes
into the Assyrian exile had preceded, viz., that which took place when
Judah was carried away into the Babylonish exile, and especially after
the destruction of Jerusalem. The latter view is the correct one. The
whole tenor of the Prophet's words shows that he supposes a
_comprehensive_ dispersion of the people. It is true that, at the time
when the prophecy was written, the ten tribes had already been carried
away into captivity; but the kingdom of Judah, the subjects of which,
according to ver. 12, likewise appear as being in the dispersion, had
not yet suffered any important desolation. The few inhabitants of Judah
who, according to Joel iv. 6, (iii. 6), and Amos i. 6, 9, had been sold
as slaves by the Philistines and Ph[oe]nicians, and others, who, it may
be, in hard times had spontaneously fled from their native country,
cannot here come into consideration. Just as here, so by Hosea too, the
future carrying away of the inhabitants of Judah is anticipated; comp.
vol. i., p. 219, 220. The fundamental passage is in Deut. xxx. 3, 4,
where the gathering of Israel is promised "from all the nations whither
the Lord thy God has scattered thee. If any of thine be driven out into
the utmost parts of heaven, from thence will the Lord thy God gather
thee, and from thence will He fetch thee." This passage shows with what
clearness the future scattering lay before the eyes of the holy men,
even at the first beginnings of the people of God. In vers. 11 and 12
we have the summary of the whole of the second part of Isaiah, in which
the announcement of Israel's being gathered and brought back is
constantly repeated; and it is quite incomprehensible how some grant
the genuineness of the prophecy before us, and yet bring forward,
against this second part of Isaiah, the argument that the Prophet could
not _suppose_ the scattering, that it must really have taken place,
since he simply announces their being brought back.--As regards the
redemption from the scattering, all that which in history is realised
in a series of events, is here united in one view. There is no reason
for excluding the deliverance under Zerubbabel; for it, too, was
already granted for the sake of Christ, whose incarnation the Prophet
anticipates in faith; comp. remarks on chaps. vii., ix. This
redemption, [Pg 128] however, in which those who have been brought back
remain servants in the land of the Lord, can be considered as only a
prelude to the true one; comp. vol. i., p. 220 f. 448. The true
fulfilment began with the appearance of Christ, and is still going on
towards its completion, which can take place even without Israel's
returning to Canaan, comp. vol. i., p. 222. Asshur opens the list, and
occupies the principal place, because it was through him who, under the
very eyes of the Prophet, had carried away the ten tribes, that the
dispersion began. But the Prophet does not limit himself to that which
was obvious,--did not expect, from the Messiah, only the healing of
already existing hurts.--With Asshur, _Egypt_ is connected in one pair.
Egypt is the _African_ world's power struggling for dominion with the
_Asiatic_. Its land serves not only as a refuge to those oppressed by
the Asiatic world's power (comp. Jer. xlii. ff.), but, in that struggle
with the Asiatic power, itself invades and oppresses the land; comp.
chap. vii. 18; 2 Kings xxiii. 29 ff.: "In his days Pharaoh Necho, king
of Egypt, went up against the king of Assyria." In a similar
connection, Asshur and Egypt, the kingdoms on the Euphrates and the
Nile, appear in chap. xxvii. 13: "And it shall come to pass in that
day, that a great trumpet is blown, and they come, the perishing ones
in the land of Asshur, and the outcasts in the land of Egypt, and
worship the Lord in the holy mount at Jerusalem;" Micah vii. 12; Jer.
ii. 18; Lam. v. 6. As annexed to Egypt, the _second_ pair presents
itself, representing the uttermost _South_; compare the expression,
"from the four comers of the earth," in ver. 12. Pathros, in Jer. xliv.
1, 15, also appears as a dependency of Egypt; and Cush, Ethiopia, was,
at the Prophet's time, the ally of Egypt, chap. xxxvii. 9, xviii., xx.
3-6. _Gesenius_ remarks on chap. xx. 4: "Egypt and Ethiopia are, in the
oracles of this time, always connected, just as the close political
alliance of these two countries requires."--From the uttermost South,
the Prophet turns to the uttermost East. "Elam is," as _Gesenius_ in
his Commentary on chap. xxi. 2 remarks, "in the pre-exilic writers,
used for Persia in general, for which afterwards [Hebrew: prs] becomes
the ordinary name;" and according to Dan. viii. 2, the Persian
Metropolis Shushan is situated in Elam. It appears in chap. xxii. 6 as
the representative of the world's power [Pg 129] which in future will
oppress Judah, and we hence expect that it will appear in an Elamitic
phase also.--Shinar, the ancient name for Babylon, is that world's
power which, according to chaps. xiii., xiv., xxxix., and other
passages, is to follow after the Assyrian, and is to carry away Judah
into exile. Elam and Madai appear in chap. xxi. 2 as the destroyers of
the Babylonian world's power; hence the Elamitic phase of it can follow
after the Babylonish only. The geographical arrangement only can be the
reason why it is here placed first.--The last of the four pairs of
countries is formed by Hamath, representing Syria, (comp. 1 Maccab.
xii. 25, according to which passage Jonathan the Maccabee marches into
the land of Hamath against the army of Demetrius,) and the islands of
the sea, the islands and the countries on the shores of the
Mediterranean in the uttermost West. As early as in the prophecy of
Balaam, in Numb. xxiv. 24: "And ships come from the side of Chittim and
afflict Asshur, and afflict Eber, and he also perisheth," we find the
announcement that, at some future time, the Asiatic kingdoms shall be
conquered by a power which comes from the West in ships, by European
nations--an announcement which was realised in history by the dominion
of the Greeks and Romans in Asia.

Ver. 12: "_And He setteth up an ensign to the Gentiles and assembleth
the exiled of Israel, and gathereth together the dispersed of Judah
from the four corners of the earth._"

The setting up of the ensign for the Gentiles, around which they are to
assemble for the purpose of restoring Israel, took place, in a prelude,
under Cyrus; comp. chap. xiv. 2, xlix. 22: "Thus saith the Lord God:
Behold I lift up mine hand to the Gentiles, and set up my standard to
the nations, and they bring thy sons on their bosom, and thy daughters
are carried upon their shoulders;" where the sons and daughters
correspond to the exiled men of Israel, and to the dispersed women of
Judah, equivalent to all the exiled and dispersed men and women. As
early as in the Song of Solomon, we are taught that in the Messianic
time the Gentile nations will take an active part in the restoration of
Israel. According to the first part of that Song, the appearance of the
heavenly Solomon is connected with the reception of the Gentiles into
His Kingdom, and that, through the instrumentality of the [Pg 130] old
covenant people, as is intimated by the name of the daughters of
Jerusalem; comp. my Comment. on Song of Solomon, iii. 9-11. In the
second part of that Song we have a description of the reunion of
apostate Israel with Christ,--which reunion takes place by the
co-operation of the daughters of Jerusalem, the same whom they formerly
brought to salvation. According to Is. lxvi. 20, the Gentiles,
converted to the Lord in the time of salvation, bring the children of
Israel for an offering unto the Lord,--A significant allusion to the
passage before us is found in John xi. 52: [Greek: kai ouch huper tou
ethnous monon, all'hina kai ta tekna tou Theou ta dieskorpismena
sunagage eis hen.] It is the same mercy seeking that which is lost that
manifests itself in the gathering of apostate Israel, and in the
gathering of the Gentiles. What is said of the one furnishes, at the
same time, the guarantee for the other.

Ver. 13. "_And the envy of Ephraim departeth, and the adversaries of
Judah are cut off; Ephraim shall not envy Judah, and Judah shall not
vex Ephraim._"

According to the explanatory fourth clause, the "adversaries of Judah"
in the second clause, can only be those among Judah who vex Ephraim. At
the very beginning of the separation of the two kingdoms, their future
reunion had been announced by a prophet; and this must now take place
as certainly as Jehovah is God, who had promised to David and his house
the eternal dominion over all Israel. The separation had taken place
because the house of David had become unfaithful to its vocation. In
the Messiah, the promise, to the Davidic race is to be completely
realized; _and this realization has_, for its necessary consequence,
the _removal for ever_ of the separation; comp. Ezek. xxxvii. 22. It
was a _prelude_ to the fulfilment, that a portion of the subjects of
the kingdom of the ten tribes united with Judah in all those times
when, in the blessing accompanying the enterprises of a pious son of
David, the promise granted to David was, in some measure realized,--as
was the case under Jehoshaphat, Hezekiah, and Josiah. Even before
Christ appeared in the flesh, the announcement here made was all but
realized. The exile put an end to the kingdom of the ten tribes, and
hence also to the unnatural separation which had been designated as the
severest calamity of the past, chap. vii. 17. The other tribes [Pg 131]
joined Judah and the restored sanctuary; comp. Acts xxvi. 7; Luke ii.
36. The name of "_Jews_" passed over to the whole nation; the jealousy
disappeared. This blessing was conferred upon the people for Christ's
sake, and with a view to His future appearance. In Christ, the bond of
union and communion is so firmly formed that no new discord can
alienate the hearts from one another.

Ver. 14. "_And they fly upon the shoulder of the Philistines toward the
West, spoil together the children of the East; Edom and Moab shall be
their assault, the children of Ammon their obedience._"

As Israel is united internally, so it shall be externally powerful.
According to the Song of Solomon vi. 10, the congregation of Israel
when, by her renewed connection with the Lord and His heavenly Solomon,
she has regained her former strength, is "terrible as an army with
banners."--The nations mentioned are those of the Davidic reign. Even
before the time of the Prophet, they had been anew conquered by
Jehoshaphat, in whom the spirit of David had been revived anew; comp. 2
Chron. xx.; Ps. lxxxiii. A prelude to the fulfilment of the prophecy
before us took place at the time of the Maccabees, comp. Vol. i. p.
467, 468. But as regards the fulfilment, we are not entitled to limit
ourselves to the names here mentioned. These names are the accidental
element in the prophecy; the thought is this: As soon as Israel
realizes its destiny, it partakes of God's inviolability, of God's
victorious power. The Prophet's sole purpose is to point out the
victorious power, to give prominence to the thought that outward
prosperity is the necessary consequence of inward holiness.--In the
first clause, the image is taken from birds of prey; comp. Hab. i. 8:
"They fly as an eagle hastening to eat," which passage refers to the
enemies of Israel at the time of wrath. In the time of _grace_, the
relation will be just the reverse.--[Hebrew: mwlH id] occurs, in a
series of passages in Deuteronomy, of that which is taken in hand,
undertaken. Edom and Moab are no longer an object of _Noli me tangere_
for them.

Ver. 15. "_And the Lord destroys the tongue of the Sea of Egypt, and
waves His hand over the River with the violence of His wind, and
smiteth it into seven streams, that one may go through in shoes._"

[Pg 132]

Ver. 16. "_And there shall be a highway for the remnant of His people
which was left from Asshur; like as it was to Israel in the day that he
came up out of the land of Egypt._"

The miraculous power of the Lord shall remove all obstacles to
deliverance. These obstacles are represented by the Euphrates and the
Red Sea (the tongue of the Sea of Egypt, equivalent to the point of
it), with a reference to the fact that, among the countries, in ver.
11, from which Israel is to be delivered, there had been mentioned,
_Egypt_, between which and the Holy Land was the Red Sea, and Asshur,
situated on the other side of Euphrates. To Euphrates, upon which there
will be repeated that which, in ancient times, was done in the case of
Jordan, the Prophet assigns, in ver. 15, the last place, on account of
ver. 16. The highway in that verse is prepared by the turning off of
Euphrates, so that we might put: "And thus," at the beginning of the
verse. As regards the destroying, [Hebrew: hHrvM], it is the forced
devoting to God of that which would not spontaneously serve Him;
compare remarks on Mal. iii. 24. Objects of such devoting can properly
be _persons_ only, because they only are capable of spontaneous
sanctification to God, as well as of wilful desecration. The fact that
it is here transferred to the sea may be accounted for by its being
personified. The destruction which is inflicted upon the sea is, in it,
inflicted upon the enemies of God thereby represented, inasmuch as
it opposes the people of God, and thus, as it were, strives against
God.--_With the violence or terror of His wind_, _i.e._, with His
violent, terrible wind. There is in this an allusion to Exod. xiv. 21,
according to which the Lord dried up the Red Sea by a violent wind.
Against _Drechsler_, who thinks of "God's breathing of anger," first,
this reference to Exod. xiv. 21, and farther, the circumstance that the
[Hebrew: rvH] appears as something which the Lord has in His hand, are
decisive.--In ver. 16 we need not, after "from Asshur," supply the
other nations mentioned in ver. 11, which would be unexampled; but
Asshur appears as the representative of all the enemies of God.
Similarly in Micah also, Asshur is, with evident intention, used
typically; comp. Vol. i. p. 515, 516.



[Footnote 1: Notwithstanding the arguments which we stated in favour of
our proposition, that the original form of the name is [Hebrew: ncr].
_Ebrard_ without even attempting to refute them, assumes, in favour of
a far-fetched conjecture, that the name of the place was written
[Hebrew: nzrt] (_Kritik. d. Ev. Geschichte_ S. 843, 1st Ed.), and has
introduced this opinion even into the text of the new edition of
_Olshausen's_ Commentary, edited by him. The circumstance that
elsewhere _commonly_ the Hebrew [Hebrew: z] is, in Greek, rendered by
[Greek: z], [Hebrew: c] by [Greek: s] is, in this case, where the
special arguments in favour of [Hebrew: ncr] are so strong, of no
consequence.]

[Footnote 2: _Hofmann_ (_Weissagung und Erfuellung._, II. S. 64) was the
last who assumed that the Evangelist had generally in view those
passages in which the lowliness, contempt, and rejection of Christ are
spoken of, and that, in the Old Testament passages in question, the
[Greek: Nazoraios] was not contained according to the letter, but
according to the spirit only. But this is opposed not only by the whole
manner of quotation which is given as a literal one, but also by a
whole series of analogies: Christ's birthplace in Bethlehem, His stay
in Jerusalem, His ministry in Galilee, and especially in Capernaum, His
entrance into Jerusalem,--all these are by Matthew traced back to
prophetical declarations which have a special reference to these
localities. Against the exposition given by us, _Hofmann_ advances the
assertion that neither [Hebrew: ncr] nor [Hebrew: HTr] have ever
attached to them the idea of lowliness, of unassuming appearance. But
even if a twig were not of itself something lowly and unassuming in
appearance, yet, in the passage before us, that idea is, at all events,
implied in the connection with the _stump_ and _roots_, as well as by
the contrast to [Hebrew: iprh]]

[Footnote 3: The following passage, which we take from _Raim. Martini
Pug. Fid._ III. 3, 19 p. 685, will fully illustrate that custom: R.
_Abba_ said: His name is [Hebrew: ihvh] Lord, according to the word in
Jerem. xxiii. 6; R. _Josua ben Levy_ said: "His name is Sprout,
according to what is said in Zech. vi. 12. Others say that His name
will be Comforter, Son of the strength of God, as is declared in Lam.
i. 16. Those from the School of R. _Siloh_ said: His name will be
_Shiloh_, as is written in Gen. xlix. 10: 'Until Shiloh come.'Those
from the School of R. _Chanina_ said: His name will be the Gracious
one, as Jerem. said in chap. xvi. 13. Those from the School of R.
_Jannai_ said: Jinnon shall be His name, according to Ps. lxxii. 17,
&c."]


[Pg 133]




                               CHAP. XII.


This chapter contains Israel's hymn of thanks after having obtained
redemption and deliverance, and is connected with chap. ix. 2 (3),
where the Prophet had, in general, mentioned the joy of the elect in
the Messianic time. Here he embodies it in words. The hymn, which forms
a kind of close, and, to a certain degree, belongs to the whole cycle
of the preceding Messianic prophecies, is based upon the hymn of
thanksgiving by Israel after having passed through the Red Sea,--that
historical fact which contained so strong a guarantee for the future
redemption, and is in harmony with chap. xi. 15, 16, where the Prophet
had announced a renewal of those wonderful leadings of the Lord. The
hymn falls into three stanzas, each consisting of two verses. In ver. 1
and 2, and in ver. 4 and 5, the redeemed ones are introduced speaking;
ver. 3 and 5, which likewise form a couple, contain an epilogue of the
Prophet on the double _jubilus_ of the congregation.

Ver. 1. "_And in that day thou sayest: I will praise thee, Lord, for
thou wast angry with me, and now thine anger is turned away, and thou
comfortest me._ Ver. 2. _Behold, God is my salvation; I trust, and am
not afraid; for my strength and song is the Lord, and He became my
Saviour._"

The words "my strength and my song," are from Exod. xv. 2. The two
members of the verse enter into the right relation to one another, and
the [Hebrew: ki] becomes intelligible, only if we keep in mind that the
words at the beginning, "The Lord is my salvation," are an expression
of the conviction of the speaker; hence are equivalent to: we
acknowledge Him as our God; so that the first part expresses the
subjective disposition of the Church; the second, the objective
circumstance of the case--that on which that disposition is founded,
and from which it grew up.

Ver. 3. "_And ye draw water in joy out of the wells of salvation._"

During the journey through the wilderness, the bestowal of salvation
had been represented under the form of granting [Pg 134] water. It is
to it that we have here an allusion. The spiritual water denotes
salvation.

Ver. 4. "_And in that day ye say: Praise the Lord, proclaim His name,
declare His doings among the nations, make mention that His name is
exalted._ Ver. 5. _Praise the Lord, for He hath done great things; this
is known in all the earth._"

Ver. 6. "_Cry out and shout thou inhabitant of Zion; for great is the
Holy One of Israel in thy midst._"


                           * * * * * * * * * *


There now follows a cycle of ten prophecies, which, in the
inscriptions, have the name [Hebrew: mwa] "burden," and in which the
Prophet exhibits the disclosures into the destinies of the nations
which he had received on the occasion of the threatening Assyrian
invasion under Sennacherib. For, from the prophecy against Asshur in
chap. xiv. 24, 25, which is contained in the very first burden, it
clearly appears that the cycle which, by the equality of the
inscriptions, is connected into one well arranged and congenial whole,
belongs to this period. This prophecy against Asshur forms one whole
with that against Babel, and by it the latter was suggested and called
forth. In that prophecy, the defeat of Asshur, which took place in the
14th year of Hezekiah, is announced as future. It is true that the
second burden, directed against the Philistines, in chap. xiv. 28-32,
seems to suggest another time. Of this burden it is said, in ver. 28,
that it was given in the year that king Ahaz died; not in the year in
which his death was impending, but in that in which he died, comp.
chap. vi. 1. The distressed circumstances of the new king raised the
hopes of the Philistines, who, under Ahaz, had rebelled against the
Jewish dominion. But the Prophet beholds in the Spirit that, just under
this king, the heavenly King of Zion would destroy these hopes, and
would thrust down Philistia from its imaginary height. But from the
time of the original composition of the prophecy, that of its
_repetition_ must be distinguished. That took place, as is just shewn
by the prophecy's being received in the cycle of the _burdens_, at the
time when the invasion of Sennacherib was immediately impending. The
Assyrians were the power from the _North_, [Pg 135] by whom the
threatened destruction would break in upon the Philistines; and the
truth of the word should be verified upon them, that prosperity is only
the forerunner of the fall. In the view of the fulfilment, Isaiah
repeated the prophecy.

From the series of these _burdens_, we shall very briefly comment upon
those which are of importance for our purpose. First,




                       CHAPTERS XIII. l.-XIV. 27.


This prophecy does not contain any characteristically expressed
Messianic element; but it is of no small consequence for bringing out
the whole picture of the future, as it was before the mind of the
Prophet. It is in it that Babel meets us distinctly and definitely as
the threatening world's power of the future, by which Judah is to be
carried away into captivity.

The genuineness is incontrovertibly testified by the close; and it is
only by a naturalistic tendency that it can be denied. With the
announcement of the deliverance from Babel is first, in chap. xiv. 24,
25, connected an announcement of deliverance from Asshur; and then
follows in ver. 26 and 27, the close of the whole prophecy from chap.
xiii. 1, onward. Vers. 26 and 27, which speak of the whole earth and of
all the nations, refer to chap. xiii., where the Prophet had spoken of
an universal judgment, comp. ver. 5, 9, 10, &c.; while, in the verses
immediately preceding, one single people, the Assyrians only, were
spoken of It is thereby rendered impossible to separate chap. xiv. 24,
27 from the whole.

Behind the world's power of the present--the Assyrian--the Prophet
beholds a new one springing up--the Babylonish. Those who have asserted
that the prophecy against Babel is altogether without foundation as
soon as Isaiah is supposed to have composed it, are utterly mistaken.
Although the prophecy was by no means destined for the contemporaries
only, as prophecy is generally destined for all times of the Church,
yet, even for the Prophet's contemporaries, every letter was of
consequence. If Israel's principal enemies belonged to the future, how
very little was to be feared from the present ones; and especially if
Israel should and must rise from even the [Pg 136] deepest abasement,
how should God not then deliver them from the lower distress and need?
But just because weak faith does not like to draw such _inferences_,
the Prophet at the close expressly adverts to the present affliction,
and gives to the weak faith a distinct and sure word of God, by which
it may support itself, and take encouragement in that affliction.

The points of connection must not be overlooked which the prophecy
in chap. xi. offers for the prophecy before us. We already met there
the total decay of the royal house of David, the carrying away of
Judah into exile, and their dispersion into all lands. It is on this
foundation that the prophecy before us takes its stand: it points
to the power by which these conditions are to be brought about.
Farther--There, as well as here, the conditions of the future are not
expressly _announced_ as such, but _supposed_: the Prophet takes his
stand in the future. There, as well as here, the Prophet draws
consolation in the sufferings of the present from a salvation to be
bestowed in a far distant future only.

From the very outset, the Prophet announces an impending carrying away
of the people, and, at the same time, that, even in this distress, the
Lord would have compassion upon His people, comp. _e.g._ chaps. v., vi.
From the very outset, the Prophet clearly saw that it was not by the
Assyrians that this carrying away would be effected. This much we
consider to be fully proved by history. The progress which the prophecy
before us offers, when compared with those former ones, consists in
this circumstance only, that the Prophet here expressly mentions the
names of the future destroyers. And in reference to this circumstance
we may remark, that, according to the testimony of history, as early as
at that time, the plan of the foundation of an independent power was
strongly entertained and fostered at Babylon, as is clearly enough
evidenced by the embassy of the viceroy of Babylon to Hezekiah.

In chap. xxiii. 13--the prophecy against Tyre, which is acknowledged to
be genuine by the greater number of rationalistic interpreters--the
Prophet shows the clearest insight into the future universal dominion
of Chaldea, which forms the point of issue for the prophecy before us.
With perfect clearness this insight meets us in chap. xxxix. also, on
which even _Gesenius_ cannot avoid remarking: "The prophetic eye of [Pg
137] Isaiah foresaw, even at that time, that, in a political point of
view, Babylon would, in a short time, altogether enter into the track
of Assyria."




                         CHAPTERS XVII., XVIII.


These two chapters form one whole, as, generally, the series of the
ten _burdens_ is nowhere interrupted by inserted, heterogeneous,
independent portions. Chapter xx. forms an appendix only to chapter
xix. In the same manner, the prophecy against Sebna in chap. xxii.
16-25, stands in an internal connection with vers. 1-15; in that which
befel him, the destinies of the people were to be typified. That these
two chapters belong to one another is clearly proved by the parallelism
of chap. xvii. 10, 11, and chap. xviii. 4-6.

The inscription runs: "Burden of Damascus." It is at the commencement
of the prophecy that the Syrians of Damascus are spoken of; the
threatening soon after turns against Judah and Israel. This is easily
accounted for by the consideration that the prophecy refers to a
relation where Judah and Israel appear in the retinue of Damascus. It
was from Damascus that, in the Syrico-Damascenic war, the whole
complication proceeded. Aram induced Israel to join him in the war
against Judah, and misled Judah to seek help from Asshur. In a general
religious point of view, also, all Israel, the kingdom of the ten
tribes, as well as Judah, were at that time, as it were, incorporated
into Damascus; comp. ver. 10, according to which Israel's guilt
consisted in having planted strange vines in his vineyard, with 2 Kings
xvi. 10, according to which Ahaz got an altar made at Jerusalem after
the pattern of that which he had seen at Damascus. The circumstance
that Israel had become like Damascus, was the reason why it was given
up to the Gentiles for punishment.

From the comparison of chap. x. 28-34, it appears that chap. xvii.
12-14 belongs to the time of Hezekiah, when Israel was threatened by
the invasion of Sennacherib. In chap. xvii. 1-11, in which, at first,
the overthrow of Damascus and the kingdom of the ten tribes appears as
still future, the Prophet [Pg 138] thus transfers himself back to the
stand-point of an earlier time. To this result we are also led by the
chronological arrangement of the whole collection. The Prophet,
stepping back in spirit to the beginning of the complication, surveys
the whole of the calamity and salvation which arise to Israel from the
relation to Asshur and the whole world's power represented by Asshur--a
relation into which it had been led by Damascus--and takes a view of
the punishment which it receives by its sins, by its having become
worldly, and of the Divine mercy which sends deliverance and salvation.

The threatening goes as far as chap. xvii 11. The rod of chastisement
is, in the first instance, in the hand of Asshur; but he, as has been
already mentioned, represents the world's power in general. With this,
the promise connects itself. The oppressors of the people of God are
annihilated, chap. xvii. 12-14. All the nations of the earth,
especially Ethiopia, which was, no less than Israel, threatened by
Asshur (comp. chap. xxxvii. 9), and to which Egypt at that time
occupied the position of a subordinate ally, perceive with astonishment
the catastrophe by which God brings about the destruction of His
enemies, chap. xviii. 1-3. Or, to state it more exactly: Messengers
who, from the scene of the great deeds of the Lord, hasten in ships,
first, over the Mediterranean, then, in boats up the Nile, bring the
intelligence of the catastrophe which has taken place to Cush, the land
of the rustling of the wings--thus named from the rustling of the wings
of the royal eagle of the world's power, which, being in birth equal to
Asshur, has there its seat, vers. 1 and 2; comp. chap. viii. 8. All the
inhabitants of the earth shall look with astonishment at the
catastrophe which is taking place, ver. 3, where the Prophet who, in
vers. 1 and 2, had described the catastrophe as having already taken
place, steps back to the stand-point of reality. In vers. 4-6, we have
the graphic description of the catastrophe. At the close, we have, in
ver. 7, the words which impart to the prophecy importance for our
purpose.

"_In that time shall be brought, as a present unto the Lord of hosts,
the people far stretched and shorn, and from the people terrible since
it_ (has been) _and onward, and from the people of law-law and
trampling down, whose land streams divide, to the place of the name of
the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion._"

[Pg 139]

The expression, "shall be brought as a present," (the word [Hebrew: wi]
occurs, besides in this passage, only in Ps. lxviii. 30; lxxvi. 12)
points back to the fundamental passage in Ps. lxviii. 30, where David
says, "Because of thy temple over Jerusalem shall kings bring presents
unto thee." As outwardly, so spiritually too, the sanctuary lies _over_
Jerusalem. The sanctuary of God over Jerusalem is the emblem of His
protecting power, of His saving mercy watching over Jerusalem; so that,
"because of thy temple over Jerusalem they bring," &c., is equivalent
to: On account of thy glorious manifestation as the God of Jerusalem.
Cush is in that Psalm, immediately afterwards, expressly mentioned by
the side of Egypt, which, at the Prophet's time, was closely connected
with it. "Princes shall come out of Egypt, Cush makes her hands to
hasten towards God."--According to _Gesenius_, and other interpreters,
the [Hebrew: mN] from the second clause is to be supplied before
[Hebrew: eM mmwK]. But this is both hard and unnecessary. It is quite
in order that, first, the offering of persons, and, afterwards, the
offering of their gifts should be mentioned. Parallel is chap. xlv. 14:
"The labour of Egypt and the merchandize of Ethiopia, and the Sabeans,
men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine;"
the difference is only this, that there first the goods are mentioned,
and then the men. In chap. lxvi. 20, we likewise meet men who are
brought for an offering. The designations of the people who here appear
as the type of the whole Gentile world to be converted at some future
period, and who have been chosen for this honour in consequence of the
historical circumstances which existed at the time of the Prophet, are
taken from ver. 2. _Gesenius_ is wrong in remarking in reference to
them: "All these epithets have for their purpose to designate that
distant people as a powerful and terrible one." As _Gesenius_ himself
was obliged to remark in reference to the last words, "Whose land
streams divide:" "This is a designation of a striking peculiarity of
the country, not of the people,"--the purpose of the epithets can
generally be this only, to characterise the people according to their
different prominent peculiarities.--[Hebrew: mmwK] properly "_drawn
out_," "_stretched_," Prov. xiii. 12, corresponds to the [Hebrew: anwi
mdh] "men of extension or stature," in chap. xlv. 14. High stature
appears, in classical writers also, as a characteristic sign of the [Pg
140] Ethiopians.--On [Hebrew: mvrT] "_closely shorn_," comp. chap. l.
6, where [Hebrew: mrT] is used of the plucking out of the hair of the
beard.--"To the people fearful since it and onward," equivalent to:
which all along, and throughout its whole existence, has been terrible;
compare [Hebrew: mimi hia] Nah. ii. 9, and the expression: "from this
day and forward," 1 Sam. xviii. 9. For everywhere one people only is
spoken of, comp. ver. 1, according to which Egypt cannot be thought
of--[Hebrew: qv qv] "law-law" is explained from chap. xxviii. 10, 13,
where it stands beside [Hebrew: cv cv], and designates the mass of
rules, ordinances, and statutes. This is characteristic of the
Egyptians, and likewise of the Ethiopians, who bear so close an
intellectual resemblance to them. With regard to the connection of the
verse with what precedes, _Gesenius_ remarks: "The consequence of such
great deeds of Jehovah will be, that the distant, powerful people of
the Ethiopians shall present pious offerings to Jehovah,"--more
correctly, "present themselves and their possessions to Jehovah."--A
prelude to the fulfilment Isaiah beheld with his own eyes. It is said
in 2 Chron. xxxii. 33: "And many (in consequence of the manifestation
of the glory of God in the defeat of Asshur before Jerusalem) brought
gifts unto the Lord to Jerusalem." Yet, we must not limit ourselves to
that. The real fulfilment can be sought for only at a later time, as
certainly as that which the Prophet announces about the destruction of
the world's power exceeds, by far, that isolated defeat of Asshur,
which can be regarded as a prelude only to the real fulfilment; and
as certainly as he announces the destruction of Asshur generally,
and, under his image, of the world's power. "He who delights in
having pointed out the fulfilment of such prophecies in the later
history"--_Gesenius_ remarks--"may find it in Acts viii. 26 ff., and
still more, in the circumstance that Abyssinia is, up to this day, the
only larger Christian State of the East."--In consequence of the
glorious manifestation of the Lord in His kingdom, and of the
conquering power which, in Christ, He displayed in His relation to the
world's power, there once existed in Ethiopia a flourishing Christian
Church; and on the ground of this passage before us, we look at its
ruins which have been left up to this day, with the hope that the Lord
will, at some future time, rebuild it.

[Pg 141]




                              CHAPTER XIX.


The burden of Egypt begins with the words: "Behold the Lord rideth upon
a swift cloud, and cometh into Egypt, and the idols of Egypt are moved
at His presence, and the heart of Egypt melteth in the midst of it."
The clouds with which, or accompanied by which, the Lord comes, are, in
the Old and New Testament writings, symbolical indications and
representations of judgment; comp. my remarks on Rev. i. 7; and besides
the passages quoted there, compare in addition Jer. iv. 13; Rev. xiv.
14. But what judgment is here spoken of? According to _Gesenius_ and
other interpreters, the calamity is the victory of Psammeticus over the
twelve princes, with which physical calamities are to be joined. But
against this view, ver. 11 alone is conclusive, inasmuch as, according
to this verse, Pharaoh, at the time when this calamity breaks in upon
Egypt, is the ruler of the whole land: "How say ye unto Pharaoh: I am
the Son of the wise a (spiritual) son of the kings of ancient times,"
who are celebrated for their wisdom. In ver. 2, according to which, in
Egypt, kingdom fights against kingdom, we cannot, therefore, think of
independent kingdom s; but following the way of the LXX., [Greek: nomos
epi nomon], of provinces only. Further,--According to _Gesenius_, the
fierce lord and cruel king in ver. 4 is assumed to be Psammeticus. But
against this the plural alone is decisive. Ezek. xxx. 12--according to
which outward enemies, the [Hebrew: zriM], are the cause of the drying
up of the Nile, of the ceasing of wealth and prosperity--militates
against the assumption of a calamity independent of the political one.
The circumstance, that the prophecy under consideration belongs to the
series of the _burdens_, and was written in the view of Asshur's
advance, leaves us no room to doubt that the Lord is coming to judgment
in the oppression by the Asiatic world's power. To this may be added
the analogy of the prophecies of Jeremiah and Ezekiel against Egypt,
which are evidently to be considered as a resumption of the prophecy
under consideration, and as an announcement that its realization is
constantly going on. They do not know any other calamity than being
given up to the Asiatic world's power. Compare _e.g._ Jer. xlvi. 25,
26: "And behold, I visit Pharaoh and Egypt, and their gods and their
kings, Pharaoh [Pg 142] and them that trust in him. And I deliver them
into the hand of those that seek their soul, and into the hand of
Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon." After what we have remarked, the
discord among the Egyptians in ver. 2, can be considered as the
consequence and concomitant of the real and main calamity only: Where
God is not in the midst, there, commonly, internal discord is wont to
follow upon severe outward affliction, inasmuch as one always imputes
to the other the cause of matters going on so badly. And what is said
of the drying up of the Nile, we shall thus likewise be obliged to
consider as a consequence of the hostile oppression. Waters are, in
Scripture, the ordinary image of prosperity; compare remarks on Rev.
xvii. 1, 8, 40; xvi. 4. Here the Nile specially is chosen as the symbol
of prosperity, inasmuch as upon it the woe and weal of Egypt chiefly
depended. In consequence of the hostile invasion which consumes all the
strength of the land, the Nile of its prosperity dries up; "its very
foundations are destroyed, all who carry on craft are afflicted."

The scope of the prophecy is this: The Lord comes to judgment upon
Egypt (through Asshur and those who follow in his tracks), ver. 1.
Instead of uniting all the strength against the common enemy, there
arises, by the curse of God, discord and dissolution, ver. 2. Egypt
falls into a helpless state of distress, ver. 3. "And I give over Egypt
into the hand of hard rule, and a fierce king (_Jonathan_: _potens_,
sc. Nebuchadnezzar) shall rule over them, saith the Lord, Jehovah of
hosts," ver. 4. The fierce king is the king of Asshur, the Asiatic
kingdom; compare the mention of Asshur in ver. 23-25; LXX. [Greek:
basileis skleroi]. For, the fact that the unity is merely an _ideal_
one, is most distinctly and intentionally pointed at by the [Hebrew:
adniM] preceding. The prosperity of the land is destroyed, ver. 5-10.
The much boasted Egyptian wisdom can as little avert the ruin of the
country as it did formerly, in ancient times; its bearers stand
confounded and ashamed; nothing will thrive and prosper, vers. 11-15.
But the misery produces salutary fruits; it brings about the conversion
of Egypt to the God of Israel, and, with this conversion, a full
participation in all the privileges and blessings of the Kingdom of God
shall be connected, ver. 16, and especially vers. 18-25. This close of
the prophecy, which for our purpose is of special consequence, we must
still submit to a closer examination.

[Pg 143]

Ver. 18. "_In that day shall be five cities in the land of Egypt which
speak the language of Canaan and swear to the Lord of hosts; city of
destruction the one shall be called._"

_Five_, as usual, here comes into consideration as the half of _ten_,
which number represents the whole; "_five_ cities," therefore, is
equivalent to: a goodly number of cities. On the words: "Who speak the
language of Canaan," _Gesenius_ remarks: "With the spreading of a
certain religion resting on certain documents of revelation, as _e.g._
the Jewish religion, the knowledge of their language, too, must be
connected." We must not, of course, limit the thought to this, that
Hebrew was learned wherever the religion of Jehovah spread. When
viewed more deeply, the language of Canaan is spoken by all those
who are converted to the true God. Upon the Greek language, _e.g._
the character of the language of Canaan has been impressed in the
New Testament. That language which, from primeval times, has been
developed in the service of the Spirit, imparts its character to the
languages of the world, and changes their character in their deepest
foundation.--"To swear to the Lord" is to do Him homage; Michaelis:
_Juramento se Domino obstringent_; comp. chap. xlv. 23: "Unto me every
knee shall bow, every tongue shall swear." In the words: "City of
destruction," [Hebrew: hrs], one shall be called, there is contained an
allusion to [Hebrew: qir hrs], "_city of the Sun_" (Heliopolis) which
was peculiar to one of the chief seats of Egyptian idolatry. It is the
celebrated _On_ or _Bethshemish_ of which Jeremiah prophesies in chap.
xliii. 13: "And he (Nebuchadnezzar) breaketh the pillars in Beth-
shemish, that is in the land of Egypt, and the houses of the gods of
Egypt he burneth with fire." This allusion was perceived as early as by
_Jonathan_, who thus paraphrases: "_Urbs domus solis quae destruetur._"
By this allusion it is intimated that salvation cannot be bestowed upon
the Gentile world in the state in which it is; that punitive justice
must prepare the way for salvation: that everywhere the destructive
activity of God must precede that which builds up; that the way to the
Kingdom of God passes through the fire of tribulation which must
consume every thing that is opposed to God; compare that which Micah,
even in reference to the covenant-people, says regarding the necessity
of taking, before giving can have place, vol. i., p. 517.

[Pg 144]

Ver. 19. "_In that day shall there be an altar to the Lord in the midst
of the land of Egypt, and a pillar at the border thereof to the Lord._"

That the altar is to be considered as a "monument" only is a
supposition altogether far-fetched, and which can the less find any
support in the isolated case, Josh. xxii., that that account clearly
enough intimates how decidedly the existence of an altar furnishes a
foundation for the supposition that sacrifices are to be offered up
there, a supposition intimated by the very name in Hebrew. If it was
meant to serve some other purpose, it would have been necessary
expressly to state it, or, at least, some other place of sacrifice
ought to have been assigned for the sacrifices mentioned in ver. 21.
But as it stands, there cannot be any doubt that the altar here and the
sacrifices there belong to one another. This passage under
consideration is of no little consequence, inasmuch as it shows that,
in other passages where a going up of the Gentiles to Jerusalem in the
Messianic time is spoken of, as, _e.g._, chap. lxvi. 23, we must
distinguish between the thought and the embodiment. The _pillar_ at the
border bears an inscription by which the land is designated as the
property of the Lord, just as it was the custom of the old eastern
conquerors, and especially of the Egyptians, to erect such pillars in
the conquered territories.

Ver. 20. "_And it is for a sign and for a witness to the Lord of hosts
in the land of Egypt: When they cry unto the Lord because of the
oppressors, He shall send them a Saviour and a Deliverer; and he shall
deliver them._"

Altar and pillar, as a sign and witness of the confession to the Lord,
are, at the same time, a guarantee of the deliverance to be granted by
Him. According to _Gesenius_, the Prophet speaks "without a definite
historical reference, of a saving or protecting angel." But we cannot
think of an angel on account of the plain reference to the common
formula in the Book of Judges, by which it is intimated that, as far as
redemption is concerned, Egypt has been made a partaker of the
privileges of the covenant-people. It is just this reference which has
given rise to the general expression; but it is Christ who is meant;
for the prophets, and especially Isaiah, are not cognizant of any other
Saviour for the Gentile world [Pg 145] than of Him; and it is He who is
suggested by the Messianic character of the whole description.

Ver. 21. "_And the Lord is known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians
know the Lord in that day, and offer sacrifice and oblation, and vow
vows unto the Lord, and perform them._"

Ver. 22. "_And the Lord smiteth the Egyptians so that He healeth them,
and they are converted to the Lord, and He shall be entreated by them,
and shall heal them._"

We have here simply a recapitulation. The prophet describes anew the
transition from the state of wrath to that of grace--not, as
_Drechsler_ thinks, what they experience in the latter. Upon Egypt is
fulfilled what, in Deut. xxxii. 39, has been said in reference to
Israel.

Ver. 23. "_In that day there shall be a highway out of Egypt to Asshur,
and Asshur cometh into Egypt, and Egypt into Asshur, and Egypt serveth
with Asshur._"

[Hebrew: ebd] with [Hebrew: at] has commonly the signification "to
serve some one;" here, however, [Hebrew: at] is used as a preposition:
Egypt serves God _with_ Asshur. Yet there is an allusion to the
ordinary use of [Hebrew: ebd] with [Hebrew: at] in order to direct
attention to the wonderful change: First, Egypt serves Asshur, and the
powers that follow its footsteps; then, it serves _with_ Asshur. Here
also it becomes manifest that the deliverer in ver. 20 is no ordinary
human deliverer; for such an one could help his people only by
inflicting injury upon the hostile power.

Ver. 24. "_In that day Israel shall be the third with Egypt and with
Asshur, a blessing in the midst of the earth._"

The "blessing" is not "that union of people formerly separated," but it
is _Israel_ from which the blessing is poured out upon all the other
nations; compare the fundamental passage, Gen. xii. 1-3, and the word
of the Lord: [Greek: he soteria ek ton Ioudaion esti], John iv. 22.

Ver. 25. "_For the Lord of Hosts blesseth him, saying: Blessed be Egypt
my people, and Asshur the work of mine hands, and Israel mine
inheritance._"

The suffix in [Hebrew: brm] refers to every thing mentioned in ver. 24.
"Assyria and Egypt are called by epithets which elsewhere are wont to
be bestowed upon Israel only."

It is scarcely necessary to point out how gloriously this, [Pg 146]
prophecy was fulfilled; how, at one time, there existed a flourishing
Church in Egypt. Although the candlestick of that Church be now removed
from its place ("_Satanas in hac gente sevit zizania_"--_Vitringa_),
yet we are confident of, and hope for, a future in which this prophecy
shall anew powerfully manifest itself The broken power of the
Mahommedan delusion opens up the prospect, that the time in which this
hope is to be realized is drawing nigh.





                             CHAPTER XXIII.
                         THE BURDEN UPON TYRE.


In the view of Sennacherib's invasion, the eyes of the Prophet are
opened, so that he beholds the future destinies of the nations within
his horizon. It is under these circumstances that it is revealed to him
that Tyre also, which, not long before, had successfully resisted the
attack of Asshur, and had imagined herself to be invincible, would not,
for any length of time, be able to resist the attack of the Asiatic
world's power.

The threatening goes on to ver. 14; it is, in ver. 13, concentrated in
the words: "Behold the land of the Chaldeans, this people which was
not, which Asshur assigns to the beasts of the wilderness,--they set up
their watch-towers, they arouse her palaces, they bring them to ruin."
The correct explanation of this verse has been given by _Delitzsch_ in
his Commentary on Habakkuk, S. xxi. Before the capture of Tyre could be
assigned to the Chaldeans, it was necessary to point out that they
should overthrow Asshur, the representative of the world's power in the
time of the Prophet. The Chaldeans, a people which, up to that time,
were not reckoned in the list of the kingdoms of the world, destroy, in
some future period, the Assyrian power, and shall then inflict upon
Tyre that destruction which Asshur intended in vain to bring upon it.

[Pg 147]

Upon the threatening there follows the promise. Ver. 15. "_And it shall
come to pass in that day, and Tyre is forgotten seventy years like the
days of one king. After the end of seventy years, it shall be unto Tyre
according to the song of the harlot._ Ver. 16. _Take the harp, go about
the city, forgotten harlot, make sweet melody, sing many songs, that
thou mayest be remembered._ Ver. 17. _And it shall come to pass, after
the end of seventy years, the Lord will visit Tyre, and she returneth
to her hire of whoredom, and whoreth with all the kingdoms of the earth
upon the surface of the earth._ Ver. 18. _And her gain and hire of
whoredom shall be holy unto the Lord; not is it treasured and laid up,
but to those who sit before the Lord its gain shall be, that they may
eat and be satisfied, and for durable clothing._"

On the "70 years, like the days of one king," _Michaelis_ very
pertinently remarks: "Not of one individual, but of one reign or
empire, _i.e._ as long as the Babylonian empire shall last, which,
after 70 years, was destroyed by Cyrus." The necessary qualification
follows from ver. 13. According to that verse, the one king can be the
king of the Chaldeans only. Parallel are the 70 years which, in Jer.
xxv. 11, 12, are assigned to the Chaldean empire: "And these nations
serve the king of Babylon 70 years. And it shall come to pass, when the
70 years are accomplished, I will visit upon the king of Babylon, and
upon that nation, saith the Lord, their iniquity." In the Commentary on
Rev. ii. 1, p. 75, 200, it was proved that, in Scripture, kings are
frequently _ideal_ persons; not individuals, but personifications of
their kingdoms. _Gesenius'_ objection, that the time of the Babylonish
dynasty, from the pretended destruction of Tyre to the destruction of
Babylon, did not last 70 years, vanishes by the remark that the Prophet
says "like the days;" that, hence, it is expressly intimated that the
70 years here, differently from what is the case in Jeremiah, are to be
considered as a _round_ designation of the time. From a comparison of
Jeremiah we learn that the Chaldean dominion will last 70 years _in
all_. Into which point of that period the destruction of Tyre is to
fall, Isaiah does not disclose. It is quite proper that in reference to
Tyre the announcement should not be so definite, in point of
chronology, as in reference to Judah. That the capture of [Pg 148] Tyre
by the Chaldeans, which is here announced, really took place, has been
more thoroughly established in my book: _De rebus Tyriorum_; and
afterwards by _Drechsler_ in his Commentary on Isaiah, and by
_Haevernick_ in his Commentary on Ezekiel.

After the end of the 70 years. Tyre is to resume her trade of whoring,
and is to carry it on to a wide extent, and with great success. "By the
image of whoredom"--so we remarked in commenting upon Rev. xiv. 8--"in
some passages of the Old Testament, that selfishness is designated
which clothes itself in the garb of love, and, under its appearance,
seeks the gratification of its own desires. In Is. xxiii. 15 ff., Tyre
is, on account of her mercantile connections, called a whore, and the
profit from trade is designated as the reward of whoredom. The point of
comparison is the endeavour to please, to feign love for the sake of
gain." Under the dominion of the Persians, Tyre again began to
flourish.

Tyre's reward of whoredom is consecrated to the Lord, and the bodily
wants of His servants are provided from it,--quite in agreement with
the words of the Apostle: [Greek: ei hemeis humin ta pneumatika
espeiramen, mega, ei emeis humon ta sarkika therisomen]; 1 Cor. ix. 11.
Converted Tyre offers, in these gifts, its thanks for the noble gift
which it received from the sanctuary.

_Vitringa_, who remarks that the Prophet was fully aware of "the great
interval of time that would intervene betwixt the restoration of Tyre,
and her dedication of herself, with her gains, to the Lord," is right,
while _Drechsler_, who is of opinion that the doings of consecrated
Tyre also are represented under the image of whoring, is wrong. Whoring
designates a sinful conversation which is irreconcilable with
conversion to the Lord. It does not designate trade, as such, but trade
as it is earned on by those who, with unrenewed hearts, serve the god
Mammon. We have here before us two stages, strictly separated. _First_,
she resumes her old whorings; _then_, she consecrates her gain to the
Lord. The severe catastrophe intervening, the new capture of Tyre, as
it took place by Alexander, is not yet beheld by Isaiah. The
announcement of it was reserved for the post-exilic Prophet Zechariah,
chap. ix. 3.

The announcement of the future conversion of Tyre received, [Pg 149] in
the time of Christ, a symbolical representation as it were, in the
Canaanitish woman. _Vitringa_ says: "The first fruits of this grace
were received by that wise Canaanitish woman, who had been taught, as
if she had been in the school of Christ, to ask for divine grace; whom
Matth. xv. 22, calls a woman of Canaan, Mark vii. 26, a Syrophenician;
but who was no doubt a Tyrian, inasmuch as she obtained mercy from
Christ the Lord himself, while He sojourned in the territory of Tyre
and Sidon. Paul found at Tyre a congregation of disciples of Christ
already in existence, Acts xxi. 3 ff." At a subsequent period, there
existed at Tyre a flourishing and wealthy church. _Eusebius_ and
_Jerome_ describe to us, from their own experience, the fulfilment of
this prophecy.




                          CHAPTERS XXIV.-XXVII.


Upon the ten single "burdens" as they were called forth by the
threatening Assyrian catastrophe, there follows here a comprehensive
description of the judgments of God upon His people, and upon the
world's power hostile to His Kingdom, The characteristic feature in it
is, that the Prophet abstains from all details.

The prophecy begins in chap. xxiv. 1-13, with the threatening of the
judgment upon Judah, The fact that Judah is here spoken of, not alone,
it is true, but together with his companions in suffering, with all the
other nations crushed like him by the world's power in its various
phases (verse 4 most clearly shows that it is not Judah alone which is
spoken of; comp. the same comprehensive mode of representation in Jer.
xxv.; Hab. ii. 6), appears from ver. 5: "For they transgressed the
_laws_, violated the _ordinances_, broke the everlasting _covenant_,"
where there can exist only a collateral reference to the Gentile world;
from ver. 13, where the continuing gleaning is characteristic of the
covenant-people (comp. xvii. 6); but especially from ver. 23, where,
after the time of punishment, the Lord reigneth on Mount Zion.

The judgment upon Judah bears a comprehensive character. [Pg 150] As
the single phases of the world's power, by which the sins of the people
of God are visited, there had been mentioned in the cycle of the
_burdens_, Asshur in chap. xiv. 25; Babylon in chap. xiii., xiv., xxi.,
(the circumstance that the first _burden_ of the first half of the
_burdens_, and likewise the first _burden_ of the second half of the
_burdens_--the ten _burdens_ being thus divided into twice five--is
directed against Babylon, shows that specially heavy judgments were to
be inflicted by Babel); Elam in chap. xxii. 6 (comp. remarks on chap.
xi. 11). Here the idea of judgment upon the covenant-people is viewed
_per se_, and irrespective of the particular forms of its realisation.

In vers. 14, 15, there is a sudden transition from the threatening to
the promise: "They (the remnant left according to ver. 13) shall lift
their voice, they shall shout for the majesty of the Lord, they shall
cry aloud from the sea,"--from the sea into which they were driven away
by the storm of the judgments of the Lord. To the "sea" here,
correspond the "islands of the sea," in ver. 15; compare the mention of
the islands in chap. xi. 11. Ver. 15. "Therefore, in the light praise
ye the Lord, in the isles of the sea the name of the Lord God of
Israel." The words are addressed to the elect in the time of salvation.
The Plural [Hebrew: ariM] denotes the _fulness_ of light or salvation,
comp. chap. xxvi. 19; [Hebrew: b] is, in both instances, used in a
local sense. The light is the spiritual territory; the isles of the
sea, the natural.

Ver. 16 returns to the threatening: "From the uttermost parts of the
earth we hear songs: Glory to the righteous! And I say: Misery to me,
misery to me, woe to me! the treacherous are treacherous, and very
treacherous are the treacherous." The song of praise of the redeemed,
which is heard coming forth from a far distant future, is suppressed by
the same affliction which is immediately impending, by the look to the
rod of chastisement by the world's power with its treachery, its policy
feigning love and concealing hatred, with which the Lord is to visit
His people, and the floods of which, like a new flood, are, according
to ver. 15, to overflow the whole earth. Compare the very similar
transition from triumphant hope to lamentation over the misery of the
future more immediately at hand, in Hab. iii. 16.

In ver. 21, ff. the promise breaks forth anew. Ver. 21: [Pg 151] "_And
it shall come to pass in that day: the Lord shall visit the host of the
height in the height, and the kings of the earth upon the earth._ Ver.
22. _And they are all of them gathered together as prisoners in the
pit, and are shut up in the prison, and after many days they are
visited._ Ver. 23. _And the moon blusheth, and the sun is ashamed, for
the Lord of hosts reigneth on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before
His ancients is glory._"

In ver. 21 the destruction of the world's power is announced. The
"kings of the earth" form the explanation of the "host of the height."
It is very common to represent rulers under the image of stars; compare
Numb. xxiv. 17; Rev. vi. 13, viii. 10; Is. xiv. 12, xxxiv. 4, 5,
compared with ver. 12. [Hebrew: mrvM] is used in reference to the great
ones of the earth in ver. 4, and in chap. xxvi. 5, also. The
explanation by evil heavenly powers has no Old Testament analogies in
its favour.--In ver. 22, the words: "And after many days they are
visited," intimates that the time will appear very long to Zion, until
the visitation takes place. "Many days," or "a long time," viz., after
the beginning of their raging, which was to continue for a series of
centuries, until Christ at length spoke: "Be of good cheer, I have
overcome the world." The visitation consists in their being gathered
together.--In ver. 23, the words: "The Lord reigneth," contain an
allusion to the formula used in proclaiming the accession of earthly
kings to the throne, and point to an impending new and glorious
manifestation of the government of the Lord,--as it were, a new
accession to the throne; compare remarks on Ps. xciii. 1; Rev. xix. 6.
The "ancients" are the _ideal_ representatives of the Church; compare
remarks on Rev. iv. 4. Before them is glory, inasmuch as the Lord
imparts to them of His glory.

In chap. xxv. 1-5, the Lord is praised on account of the glorious
redemption bestowed upon His people. "For thou hast made"--it is said
in ver. 2--"of a city a heap, of a firm city a ruin, the palace of
strangers to be no city; it shall not be built in eternity." The city,
palace (we must think of such an one as comes up to a city, as is even
now the case with the palaces of the princes in India) bear an ideal
character, and represent the whole fashion of the world, the whole
world's power; comp. ver. 12, chaps. xxvi. 5, xxvii. 10. _Gesenius_ [Pg
152] speaks of "the strange conjectures of interpreters who have
guessed all possible cities." But he himself has lost himself in the
sphere of strange conjectures and guesses, by remarking: "The city
whose destruction is here spoken of can be none other than Babylon."
The circumstance that Babylon is not mentioned at all in the whole
prophecy in chaps. xxiv.-xxvii. shows plainly enough that a special
reference to Babylon cannot here be entertained; and the less so, that
it would be against the character of our prophecy, which abstains from
all details.

While in vers. 1-5 the discourse was laudatory and glorifying, and
addressed to the Lord, in vers. 6-8 the Lord is spoken of:

Ver. 6. "_And in this mountain the Lord of hosts maketh unto all people
a feast of fat things, a feast of wines on the lees, of fat things full
of marrow, of lees well-refined._ Ver 7. _And destroyeth in the
mountain the surface of the vail covering all the nations, and the
covering cast upon all the nations._ Ver. 8. _And destroyeth death for
ever, and the Lord Jehovah wipeth away the tears from off all faces,
and the rebuke of His people shall He take away from of all the earth;
for the Lord hath spoken._"

"In this mountain," ver. 6, where He enters upon His government (chap.
xxiv. 23), and dwells in the midst of His people in a manner formerly
unheard of.--"Unto all people," comp. chap. ii. 2 ff. The verse under
consideration forms the foundation for the words of Christ in Matthew
viii. 2: [Greek: lego de humin hoti polloi apo anatolon kai dusmon
hexousi kai anaklithesontai meta Abraam kai Isaak kai Iakob en te
basileia ton ouranon]; comp. xxii. 1 ff.; Luke xxii. 30. In ver. 7,
"the surface of the vail" is the vail itself, inasmuch as it lies over
it. The "covering" here comes into consideration as a sign of mourning,
comp. 2 Sam. xv. 30: "And David went up by the ascent of Mount Olivet,
weeping, and his head covered, and so also all the people with him."
The explanation is given in ver. 8, where the [Hebrew: ble] is
intentionally resumed. We cannot, therefore, agree with _Drechsler_ who
explains the being "covered," by "dullness and deadness in reference to
spiritual things."--The first part of ver. 8 is again resumed in Rev.
vii. 17, xxi. 4. As death entered into the world by sin (Gen. ii. 17;
Rom. v. 12), [Pg 153] so it ceases when sin is completely overcome;
compare 1 Cor. xv. 54, where our passage is expressly quoted. Besides
death, _tears_ also are mentioned, inasmuch as they flow with special
bitterness in the case of bereavements by death.--The Lord removes the
rebuke of His people when all their hopes, which formerly were mocked
and laughed at, are fulfilled, and when, out of the midst of them,
salvation for the whole world rises.

With the people of God in their exaltation, Moab is, in vers. 9-12,
contrasted in its weakness and humiliation, and in its vain attempts to
withdraw from the supremacy of the God of Israel. Moab comes here into
consideration, only as the representative of all the kingdoms hostile
to God, and obstinately persevering in their opposition to His Kingdom;
just as Edom in chap. xxxiv., lxiii. The representative character of
Moab was recognized by _Gesenius_ also, who thus determines the sense:
"Whilst Jehovah's protecting hand rests upon Zion, His enemies
helplessly perish." It is intentionally that Moab is mentioned, and not
Asshur or Babel, because, in its case, the representative character
could not so easily be mistaken or overlooked.--Ver. 12 returns to the
world's power in general.

In chap. xxvi., the rejoicing and shouting for the salvation are
continued. A characteristic Messianic feature is contained in ver. 19
only, in which, as in chap. xxv. 8, the ceasing of death and the
resurrection of the righteous appear as taking place in the Messianic
time.

Ver. 19. "_Thy dead shall live, my dead bodies shall arise. Awake and
sing, ye that dwell in dust! For a dew of light is thy dew, and thou
makest fall to the earth the giants._"

The saints are raised from the earth; the giants are sunk into the
earth. The [Hebrew: rpaiM] "giants" are identical with the [Hebrew:
iwbi tbl] in ver. 18. There it was said in reference to the time of
wrath: "We have not wrought any deliverance in the land, neither have
the inhabitants of the world fallen;" compare vers. 9 and 21; Numb.
xiv. 32. Parallel is the announcement of the defeat of the world's
power in ver. 14. [Hebrew: rpaiM], it is true, is there used of the
dead; but the signification of the word remains the same: The bodiless
spirits were called _giants_, because they were objects of terror to
the living; comp. remarks on Ps. lxxxviii. 11. The word is, in ver. 14,
used [Pg 154] with a certain irony.--"Light" is equivalent to
"salvation." The Plural signifies the fulness of light or salvation.
The complete fulfilment which the words, "Thy dead shall live," will
find in the resurrection of the body, affords a guarantee for the
fulfilment of the previous stages.

In chap. xxvii., it is especially ver. 1 which attracts our attention:
"_In that day the Lord with His sword, hard, great, and strong, shall
visit the leviathan, the tortuous serpent, and killeth the dragon that
is in the sea._"

We have here three designations of one and the same monster.
_Gesenius_, on the other hand, rightly brings forward the accumulation
of the attributes of the sword: With the three epithets applied to the
sword, the three epithets of the monster to be killed by it pertinently
correspond. The leviathan, the dragon, is, as it were, the king of the
sea-animals, compare remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 13, 14. In the spiritual sea
of the world, its natural antitype is the conquering world's power;
comp. remarks on Rev. xii. 3. But that which is meant is the whole
world's power, according to all its phases, which is here viewed as a
whole; comp. ver. 13, where it is designated by Asshur and Egypt. The
special reference to Babylon rests, here also, on a mere fancy.


                           * * * * * * * * * *




After the single discourses out of the Assyrian time, from chap.
vii-xxvii., there follows in chap. xxviii.-xxxiii. the sum and
substance of those not fully communicated. Even the uncommonly large
extent of the section suggests to us such a comprehensive character.
And so likewise does the fact that the same thoughts are constantly
recurring, as is the case in several of the minor prophets also, _e.g._
Hosea. But what is most decisive is, that in chap. xxviii. 1-4 Samaria
appears as not yet destroyed. Considering that the chronological
principle pervades the whole collection, this going back can be
accounted for only by the circumstance that we have here a
comprehensive representation. And we are the more led to this opinion
that, in other passages of the same section, Jerusalem is represented
as being threatened immediately. In this section, it is especially the
passage in chap. xxviii. 16 [Pg 155] which attracts our attention;
since, in the New Testament, it is referred to Christ.

"_Behold I have laid for a foundation in Zion a stone, a tried_
(stone), _a precious corner stone of perfect foundation; he that
believeth need not make haste_," viz., for an escape or refuge for
himself, Ps. lv. 9. In opposition to false hopes, this stone is pointed
to as the only true foundation, and all are threatened with unavoidable
destruction who do not make it their foundation. The stone is the
Kingdom of God, the Church; compare Zech. iii. 9, where the Kingdom of
God likewise appears under the image of the stone. But since the
Kingdom of God (which, in chap. viii. 16, had been represented under
the image of the quietly flowing waters of Siloah) is, for all
eternity, closely connected with the house of David which centres in
Christ, _that which, in the first instance, is said of the kingdom of
God refers, at the same time, to its head and centre_. Parallel is Is.
xiv. 32; "The Lord hath founded Zion, and the poor of His people trust
in it." The [Hebrew: hamiN] here corresponds with the [Hebrew: Hsh]
with [Hebrew: b] there. The difference is, that there Zion itself is
the object of confidence, while here it is the stone which is in Zion.
_There_, Zion is the _spiritual_ Zion; not the mountain as an
assemblage of stones, nor the outward temple as such, but Zion in so
far as it is a sanctuary, the seat of the presence of the Lord. The
Lord--such is the sense--has founded His Kingdom among us; and the
circumstance that we are citizens of the Kingdom gives us security,
enables us to be calm even in the midst of the greatest danger. _Here_,
on the contrary, Zion is the outward Zion, and the Kingdom of God is
the Church as distinguished from it. The Zion here corresponds to the
holy mountains in Ps. lxxxvii. 1, where, in a similar manner, a
distinction is drawn between the material and spiritual Zion: "His
foundation is in the holy mountains," on which I remarked in my
Commentary: "The foundation of Zion took place spiritually by its being
chosen to be the seat of the sanctuary. It was then only that the
place, already existing, received its spiritual foundation." The stone
laid by God as a foundation in Zion, in the passage under
consideration, is, in substance, identical with the "tent that He
placed among men," in Ps. lxxviii. 60. "In substance the sanctuary was
erected by God alone, who, by [Pg 156] fulfilling His promise, 'I dwell
in the midst of them,'breathed the living soul into the body, and
caused His name to dwell there." In Ezek. xi. the substance of the
sanctuary, the Shechinah, withdraws into heaven.--Our passage, farther,
touches very closely upon chap. viii. 14: "And He (the Lord) becomes a
sanctuary and a stone of offence, and a rock of stumbling to both the
houses of Israel, and a snare and a trap to the inhabitants of
Jerusalem." The stone _here_ is the Church; _there_ it is the Lord
himself, according to His relation to Israel, the Lord who has become
manifest in His Church. Another point of contact is offered by Ps.
cxviii. 22: "The stone which the builders rejected has become the
corner-stone." In that passage, too, the stone is the Kingdom and
people of God: "The people of God whom the kingdoms of the world
despised, have, by the working of God, then been raised to the dignity
of the world-ruling people."

A simple quotation of the passage before us is found in Rom. x. 11:
[Greek: legei gar he graphe. pas ho pisteuon ep'auto ou
kataischunthesetai.] In chap. ix. ver. 3, we have chap. viii. 14, and
the passage under consideration blended in a remarkable manner: [Greek:
idou tithemi en Sion lithon prokommatos kai petran skandalou. kai pas
ho pisteuon ep'auto ou kataischunthesetai], and from the remarks
already offered, the right to this blending is evident. Peter, in 1
Pet. ii. 6, 7, adds to these two passages, that in Ps. cxviii. 22:
[Greek: dioti periechei en te graphe: idou tithemi en Sion lithon
akrogoniaion, eklekton, entimon, kai ho pisteuon ep'auto ou me
kataischunthe. humin houn he time tois pisteuousin. apeithousi de
lithon hon apedokimasan hoi oikodomountes, houtos egenethe eis kephalen
gonias, kai lithos proskommatos kai petra skandalou], on which _Bengel_
remarks: "Peter quotes, in ver. 6 and 7, three passages, the first from
Isaiah, the second from the Psalms, the third again from Isaiah. To the
third he alludes in ver. 8, but to the second and first, in ver. 4,
having, even then already both of them in his mind." Matth. xxi. 42-44
refers only to Ps. cxviii. and to Is. viii. 14, 15. to the latter
passage in ver. 44; Acts iv. has Ps. cxviii. only in view.

The second Messianic passage of the section which is of importance for
our purpose, is chap. xxxiii. 17.

"_Thine eyes shall see the King in His beauty; they shall see the land
that is far off._"

[Pg 157]

The "King" is the Messiah. This appears from the reference to the Song
of Solomon i. 16, where the bride says to the bridegroom, the heavenly
Solomon, "Behold thou art _fair_, my beloved" (comp. Ps. xlv. 3;) and
from the words immediately following: "they shall see the land that is
far off." The wide extension of the Kingdom of God is indissolubly
connected with the appearance of the Messiah. Those who refer the
prophecy to Hezekiah refer "the land that is far off" (literally: "the
land of distances") to "a land stretching far out," in antithesis to
the siege when the people of Jerusalem were limited to its area, since
the whole country was occupied by the Assyrians. But the passage, chap.
xxvi. 15: "Thou increasest the nation, O God, thou art glorified, thou
removest all the boundaries of the land," is conclusive against this
explanation. Comparing this passage, as also chap. lx. 4; Zech. x. 9,
_Michaelis_ correctly explains: "The land of distances is the Kingdom
of Christ most widely propagated." In chap. viii. 9, likewise, the
Gentile countries are designated by the "distances of the earth."
_Farther_--Hezekiah could not be designated simply by [Hebrew: mlK]
without the article. It is only by the utmost violence that the whole
announcement can be limited to the events under Hezekiah, which
everywhere form the foreground only. We might rather, with _Vitringa_,
think of Jehovah, with a comparison of ver. 22: "For the Lord is our
judge, the Lord is our lawgiver, the Lord is our King; He will save
us," and of Ps. xlviii. 3, where he is called [Hebrew: mlK rb]. To
Jehovah, the passage, chap. xxx. 20, 21 also refers,--a passage which
has been so often misunderstood: "And the Lord giveth you bread of
adversity, and water of affliction, and not does thy teacher conceal
himself any more, and thine eyes see thy Teacher. And thine ears hear a
voice behind thee, saying, This is the way, walk ye in it; do not turn
to the right hand, nor to the left." The affliction prepares for the
coming of the heavenly teacher; by it the eyes of the people have been
opened, so that they are able to behold His glorious form. But although
we should understand Jehovah by "the King in His beauty," we must, at
all events, think of His glorious manifestation in Christ Jesus, who
said, He who sees me sees the Father, and in whom the fulness of the
Godhead dwells bodily; and it was indeed in Christ that God, [Pg 158]
in the truest manner, revealed and manifested himself as the Teacher of
His people.

The close of the whole of the first part of Isaiah is, in chaps.
xxxiv., xxxv. formed by a comprehensive announcement, _on the one
hand_, of the judgments upon the God-hating world, here individualized
by Edom, that hereditary enemy of Israel, who was so much the more
fitted for this representation that his enmity was the most obstinate
of all, and remained the same throughout all the phases of Israel's
oppression by the great kingdoms of the world (he always appears as he
who helped to bring misery upon his brethren); and, _on the other
hand_, of the mercy and salvation which should be bestowed upon the
Church trampled upon by the world.

On chap. xxxiv. 4;, 5, where the heaven is that of the princes, the
whole order of rulers and magistrates; the stars, the single princes
and nobles, compare my remarks on Rev. vi. 13.




The description of the salvation in store for the Church, in chap.
xxxv., is pre-eminently Messianic, although the lower blessings also
are included which preceded the appearance of Christ. The description
contains features so characteristic, that we must necessarily submit it
to a closer examination.

Ver. 1. "_The wilderness and dry land shall be glad for it, and the
desert shall rejoice and sprout like the bulb._"

The wilderness is Zion--the Church to be devastated by the world.--"For
it,"--_i.e._ for the judgment upon the world, as it was described in
chap. xxxiv. with which the changed fate of the Church is indissolubly
connected.

Ver. 2. "_It shall sprout, and rejoice with joy and shouting. The glory
of Lebanon is given unto it, the excellency of Carmel and Sharon. They
shall see the glory of the Lord, the excellency of our God._"

"The glory of Lebanon," &c. is a glory like unto that of Lebanon. The
real condition of the glory of Zion, or the Church, is brought before
us in the subsequent verses only; it consists in the Lords glory being
manifested in it. The majestic, wooded Lebanon, and fruitful Carmel,
are contrasted with one another; the latter is put together with the
lovely fruitful plain of Sharon, rich in flowers; compare remarks on
Song of Sol. vii. 6. _Michaelis_ says: "The Lebanon excels among the
forests; the Carmel among the fruitful hills; the [Pg 159] Sharon among
the lovely fields or valleys."--To "see the glory of the Lord, the
excellency _of God_" means to behold Him in the revelation of the full
glory of His nature. Prophecy would have fed the minds of the people
with vain hopes, if God had revealed himself in any other way than in
Christ, the brightness of His glory and the express image of His
person, in whom dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily (Col.
ii. 9), and who, along with His own glory, revealed, at the same time,
that of the Father; for it was the glory as of the only-begotten of the
Father, John i. 14; ii. 11.

Ver. 3. "_Strengthen ye the slack hands, and confirm ye the tottering
knees._" The words are addressed to all the members of the people of
God; they are to strengthen and confirm _one another_ by pointing to
the future revelation of the glory of the Lord.

Ver. 4. "_Say to them that are of a fearful heart: Be strong, fear not;
behold, your God will come for vengeance, for a gift of God: He will
come and save you._"

"To them that are of a fearful heart,"--literally of a "hasty heart,"
who allow themselves to be carried away by the Present, and are
unmindful of the _respice finem_.--[Hebrew: mqM] and [Hebrew: gmvl] are
Accusatives, used in the same manner as in verbs of motion, to
designate the object of the motion.--On [Hebrew: gmvl], "gift," comp.
remarks on Ps. vii. 5. "The gift of God" forms a contrast to the poor
gifts, such as men offer. He comes for vengeance upon His enemies, and
for bestowing the most glorious divine gifts upon His people. The
words: "He will come and save you," are an explanation of "the gift of
God." It is in Christ that the words: "He will come and save you,"
found their true fulfilment,--a fulfilment to which every lower
blessing pointed, and which is still going on, and constantly
advancing.--That which, in the subsequent verses, is said of the
concomitant circumstances of this salvation, is by far too high to
admit of the fulfilment being sought in any other than Christ. All
these forced explanations, such as: "In their joy they feel _as if_
they were healed" (_Knobel_, after the example of _Gesenius_), only
serve to show this more clearly. They are overthrown even by the
parallel announcement of the impending resurrection of the dead in
chap. xxv. 8; xxvi. 19.

[Pg 160]

Ver. 5. "_Then the eyes of the blind shall be opened, and the ears of
the deaf shall be unstopped._"

The blind and deaf are the individualizing designations of the
wretched; in Luke xiv. 13-21, the blind are named along with the poor,
lame, and maimed as an individualizing designation of the whole genus
of _personae miserabiles_; comp. John v. 3. But this individualizing
designation must be carefully distinguished from the image. The blind
and deaf are mentioned as the most perspicuous _species_ in the
_genus_; but they themselves are, in the first instance, meant, and
that which has been said must, in the first instance, be fulfilled upon
them. _Farther_--as blind and deaf are, without farther remark and
qualification, spoken of, we shall, in the first instance, be obliged
to think of the bodily blind and deaf, inasmuch as they, according to
the common _usus loquendi_, are thus designated. But a collateral
reference to the _spiritually_ blind and deaf must so much the rather
be assumed, that they, too, form a portion of the genus here
represented by the blind and deaf; and the more so that it is just
Isaiah who so frequently speaks of spiritual blindness and deafness;
comp. chap. xxix. 18: "And in that day (in the time of the future
salvation, when the Lord of the Church shall have put to shame the
pusillanimity and timidity of His people), the deaf hear the words of
the book, and the eyes of the blind see out of obscurity and darkness;"
xlii. 18: "Hear ye deaf, and look ye blind and see;" xliii. 8: "Bring
forth the blind people, that have eyes, and the deaf that have ears;"
lvi. 10; vi. 10; Matth. xv. 14; John ix. 39; Ephes. i. 18; 2 Pet. i. 9.
Spiritual blindness and deafness are specially seen in the relation of
the people to the leadings of the Church, and to the promises of
Scripture. The blind cannot understand the complicated ways of God; the
deaf have, especially in the time of misery, no ear for His promises.
Besides the natural and spiritual blindness, Scripture knows of still a
third; it designates as blind those who cannot see the way of
salvation, the helpless and drooping; compare my Commentary on Ps.
cxlvi. 8; Zeph. i. 17; Isa. xlii. 7. Now, it is blindness and deafness
of every kind which, along with all other misery, shall find a remedy
at the time of salvation.--If we ask for the fulfilment, our eye is, in
the first instance, attracted by Matt. [Pg 161] xi. 5, where, with an
evident reference to the passage before us, the Lord gives to the
question of John: "Art thou he that should come, or do we look for
another," the matter-of-fact answer, that the blind receive their
sight, the deaf hear, the lame walk: comp. Matth. xv. 31: [Greek: hoste
tous ochlous thaumasai blepontas kophous laloutas, kullous hugieis,
cholous peripatountas kai tuphlous blepontas]; xxi. 14; [Greek: kai
proselthon auto tuphloi kai choloi en to hiero kai etherapeusen
autous]; Mark vii. 37, where after the healing of the deaf and dumb,
the people say: [Greek: kalos panta pepoieke. kai tous kophous poiei
akouein, kai tous alalous lalein.] Yet shall we not be able to see, in
these facts, the complete fulfilment of the prophecy, in so far as it
refers to the healing of the bodily blind and deaf--inasmuch as it
promises the healing of all, not of some only--but only a pledge of the
complete fulfilment of it; just as Christ's raising some from the dead
only prefigures what He shall do in the end of the days. The complete
fulfilment belongs to the time of the resurrection of the just, of
which it is said: Whatever is here afflicted, groans, prays, shall then
go on brightly and gloriously. More comprehensive was the fulfilment
which the prophecy received, in reference to spiritual blindness and
deafness, immediately at the first appearance of Christ, who declared
that He had come into the world, that they which see not, might see
(John ix. 39). But even here the completion as certainly belongs to the
future world, as [Greek: blepomen arti di'esoptrou hen ainigmati].

Ver. 6. "_Then shall the lame leap as an hart, and the tongue of the
dumb shall shout; for in the wilderness shall waters be opened, and
streams in the desert._"

The _leaping and shouting_ imply that they have obtained deliverance
from their bodily defects,--at this deliverance the preceding verse
stopped--and proceed from the natural delight at the appearance of this
salvation, personal as well as general, of which these are an
emanation. On the first words especially. Acts iii. 8 is to be
compared, where it is said of the lame man to whom Peter, in the name
of Jesus spoke. Arise and walk: [Greek: kai exallomenos este kai
periepatei, kai eiselthe sun autois eis to hieron, peripaton kai
allomenos kai ainon ton theon]; farther. Acts viii. 7: [Greek: polloi
de paralelumenoi kai choloi etherapeuthesan]; xiv. 8; John v. 9. Of
_spiritual_ lameness, Heb. xii. 13 is spoken. It appears especially in
dark times of affliction, as _Vitringa_ says: "In the time of wild
persecution, and when the Church languishes, [Pg 162] not a few men
begin to halt, to vacillate in their views, to suspend their opinions,"
&c. On the words: "the tongue of the dumb shall shout," compare Matt.
xii. 22: [Greek: tote prosenechthe auto daimonzomenos, tuphlos kai
kophos. kai etherapeusen auton, hoste ton tuphlon kai kophon kai lalein
kai blepein.] _Spiritual_ dumbness is the incapacity for the praise of
God which, in the time when salvation is withheld, so easily creeps in,
and which is removed by the bestowal of salvation. The words: "For in
the wilderness," &c., state the ground of the leaping and shouting,
point to the bestowal of salvation, which forms the cause. The _waters_
are the waters of salvation, compare remarks on chap. xii. 3. The words
contain, moreover, an allusion to Exod. xvii. 3 ff.; Numb. xx. 11,
where, during the journey through the wilderness, salvation is
represented by the bestowal of water. The desert here is an image of
misery.

Ver. 7. "_And the scorching heat of the sun becomes a pool, and the
thirsty land, springs of water; in the habitation of dragons shall be
their couching place, grass where formerly reeds and rushes._"

"The scorching heat of the sun," stands for "places scorched by the
heat" ("parched ground," English version). The passage chap. xlix. 10,
forbids us to explain it by _mirage_, the appearance of water. The
suffix in [Hebrew: rbch] refers to Zion. Dragons like to make their
abode especially in the waterless wilderness. The circumstance that
Zion has there her couching place, supposes that it has been changed
into a garden of God; while, on the contrary, in chap. xxxiv. 13, it is
said of the world that "it becomes an habitation of dragons." Besides
the dry land, the moor-land which bears nothing but barren reeds, shall
undergo a change; nourishing _grass_ is to take its place; [Hebrew:
Hcir] has no other signification than this.

Ver. 8. "_And a high-way shall be there, and a way, and it shall be
called the holy way; an unclean shall not pass over it; and it shall be
for them, that they may walk on it, that fools also may not err._"

"The way" is the way of salvation which God opens up to His people in
the wilderness of misery; comp. chap. xliii. 19: "I will make a way in
the wilderness, rivers in the desert;" Ps. cvii. 4: "They wandered in
the wilderness, in the desert without ways," where the pathless
wilderness is the image of misery; [Pg 163] Ps. xxv. 4; xxvii. 11,
where the ways of God are the ways of salvation which He reveals to His
people, that they may walk in them. The way is _holy_ (comp. remarks on
chap. iv. 3), because inaccessible to the profane world, to the
_unclean_, who are not allowed to disturb the righteous walking on it;
comp. ver. 9, which shows how entirely out of place is the remark that
"the author, in his national hatred, will not allow any Gentiles to
walk along with the covenant-people." It is only as converted, as
fellows and companions of the saints, that the Gentiles are allowed to
enter on the way, and not as unclean and their enemies. The
circumstance that even the foolish cannot miss the way, indicates the
abundant fulness of the salvation, in consequence of which it is so
easily accessible; and no human effort, skill, or excellence, is
required to attain the possession of it.

Ver. 9. "_No lion shall be there, nor any ravenous beast go up thereon,
it shall not be found there; and the redeemed walk on it._"

By the lion, the ravenous beast, heathenish wickedness and tyranny, the
world's power pernicious to the Kingdom of God, is designated; comp.
remarks on chap. xi. 7. The Lord declared that the fulfilment had taken
place, when He said: Be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.

Ver. 10. "_And the ransomed of the Lord shall return and come to Zion,
and everlasting joy shall be upon their heads. Joy and gladness they
shall obtain, and sorrow and sighing shall flee away._"




            GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS ON CHAPTERS XL.-LXVI.


The historical section, chap. xxxvi.-xxxix., forms the transition from
the first to the second part of the prophecies of Isaiah. Its close is
formed by the announcement of Judah's being carried away to Babylon, an
announcement which Isaiah uttered to Hezekiah after the impending
danger from the [Pg 164] Assyrians had been successfully warded off, as
had been mentioned in the preceding chapter. In chap. xxxix. 6, 7, it
is said: "Behold days are coming, and all that is in thine house, and
that which thy fathers have laid up in store until this day, shall be
carried to Babylon, and nothing shall be left, saith the Lord. And of
thy sons shall they take away, and they shall be eunuchs in the palace
of the king of Babylon." In this announcement, we have at the same time
the concentration of the rebuking and threatening mission of the
Prophet, and the point from which proceeds the _comforting_ mission
which, in the second part, is pre-eminently attended to. This second
part at once begins with the words: "Comfort ye, comfort ye my people,"
which stand in closest connection with the preceding announcement of a
great calamity, yea, even necessarily demand this. It is just for this
reason that the historical chapters cannot be a later addition and
interpolation, but must be an original element of the collection
written by the Prophet himself.[1]

The contents of the second part are stated at once, and generally, in
the introductory words, chap. xl. 1, 2: "Comfort ye, comfort ye my
people, saith your God. Speak to the heart of Jerusalem, and cry unto
her that her warfare is accomplished, that her iniquity is pardoned,
that she receives of the Lord's hand double for all her sins." The
_comfort_ must, accordingly, form the fundamental character of the
second part. But since, for the people of God, there does not exist any
purely external salvation; since, for them, salvation is indissolubly
connected with _repentance_,--_exhortation_ must necessarily go hand
ill hand with the announcement of salvation. This second feature and
element concealed behind the first, is, moreover, expressly brought
forward in what immediately follows, inasmuch as by it the "Comfort ye"
does not receive any addition, [Pg 165] but is only commented upon and
enlarged. The servants of the Lord (the whole chorus of the messengers
of the divine salvation is addressed in vers. 3, 5), complying with His
command, announce the impending salvation, designating it as a
manifestation of the Lord's glory, and exhort to a worthy preparation
for it. Vers. 3 and 4 treat of preparing in the desert a high-way for
the Lord, who is to manifest himself gloriously. The way is prepared
by repentance; the desert symbolizes the condition of bodily and
spiritual misery. It is from this miserable condition that the Lord is
to deliver and redeem His people; but in order that He may perform His
part, they must, previously, have performed theirs. In ver. 5, this
manifestation itself is described, with which is connected the fulness
of salvation for the covenant-people. The servants of God are to
announce the approach of salvation to mourning Jerusalem, in which the
covenant-people appears to the Prophet as personified. (Jerusalem does
not stand for "the carried away Zionites;" it is an ideal person, the
afflicted and bowed down widow sitting on the ground in sackcloth; the
distressed and mourning mother of the children partly carried away, and
partly killed,--compare chap. iii. 26, where Jerusalem, desolate and
emptied, sits upon the ground.) But this salvation can be granted to
those only whose hearts are prepared to receive it. Thus the
announcement of salvation is preceded by the [Greek: metanoeite], by
the call to remove all the obstacles which render impassable the path
through the desert into the land of promise; which render impossible
the transition from misery to salvation; which prevent the Lord from
coming to His people in their misery, and leading them out from it.
Then, to those who have complied with the exhortation, the
manifestation of the glory of the Lord is promised--He comes to them,
in a glorious manifestation, in the way which, in the power of His
Spirit, they have prepared and opened up to Him--and in, and with it,
all the glorious things which, according to ver. 2, the servants of the
Lord were to promise regarding the Future.

The comfort oftentimes moves in general terms, and consists in pointing
to a Future full of salvation and grace. But, in other passages, the
announcement of salvation is more individualised, becomes more special.
These special announcements [Pg 166] refer to a twofold object,
_First_--The Prophet comforts his people by announcing the deliverance
from the Babylonish captivity. This deliverance he describes by the
most lovely images, frequently taken from the deliverance of the people
from Egypt. But it is to be well observed that even those prophecies
which pre-eminently refer to the lower object, have something exuberant
and overflowing; so that, even after having been fulfilled, they cannot
be looked upon as antiquated. He states the name of the ruler,
_Koresh_, the king from the rising of the sun, who, sent by the Lord,
shall punish the oppressors of Zion, and bring back the people to their
land. The _second_ object is the deliverance and salvation by the
Servant of God, the Messiah, who, after having passed through
humiliation, suffering, and death, and having thereby effected
redemption, will remove from the glorified Kingdom of God all the evil
occasioned by sin. Of this higher salvation the soul of the Prophet is
so full, that the references to it are constantly pressing forward,
even where, in the first instance, he has to do with the lower
salvation. In the description of the higher salvation, the relation of
time is not observed. Now, the Prophet beholds its Author in His
humiliation and suffering; then, the most distant Future of the Kingdom
of Christ presents itself to his enraptured eye,--the time in which the
Gentile world, alienated from God, shall have returned to Him; when all
that is opposed to God shall have been destroyed; when inward and
outward peace shall prevail, and all the evil caused by sin shall have
been removed. Elevated above time and space, from the height in which
the Holy Spirit has placed him, he surveys the whole development of the
Messianic Kingdom, from its small beginnings to its glorious end.

While the first part, containing the predictions which the Prophet
uttered for the present generation during the time of his ministry,
consists mainly of single prophecies which, separated by time and
occasion, were first made publicly known singly, and afterwards united
in a collected whole, having been marked out as different prophecies,
either by inscriptions, or in any other distinguishable way,--the
second part, destined as a legacy for posterity, forms a continuous,
collected whole. The fact, first observed by _Fr. Rueckert_, that it is
divided into _three sections or books_, is, in the first instance,
indicated by the [Pg 167] circumstance that, at the close of chap.
xlviii. and chap. lvii., the same thought recurs in the same words:
"There is no peace, saith the Lord, unto the wicked;" and that the same
thought, viz. the exclusion of the wicked from the promised salvation,
is found also a third time at the close of the whole, although there in
another form. Yet, if nothing else could be advanced in favour of this
tri-partition, we might perhaps be permitted to speak of an accident as
_Knobel_ indeed does. But a closer consideration shows that the three
sections are, inwardly and essentially, distinguished from one another.
Beyond chap. xlviii. 22, there is no farther mention of _Babel_, which
in the first book is mentioned four times (chap. xliii. 14, xlvii. 1,
xlviii. 14, 20); nor of the _Chaldeans_, which occur there five times
(chap. xliii. 14, xlvii. 1, 5, xlviii. 14, 20); nor any farther mention
of _Koresh_, neither of his name (chap. xliv. 28, xlv. 1), nor of his
person, which in chap. xl.-xlviii. is so prominently brought before us
(chap. xli. 2, 25, xlvi. 11, xlviii. 14, 15, _i.e._ immediately at the
_beginning_, after the introduction contained in chap. xl., at the
_close_, and several times in the _middle_); nor of _Bel_ and _Nebo_.
_Farther_--The whole first book is pervaded with the argumentation by
which the God of Israel is proved to be the true God, from His having
foretold the deliverance to be effected by _Koresh_. This argumentation
we meet with in chap. xli., immediately after the introductory chap.
xl., and so still in the last chap. xlviii.; but never again
afterwards. With the end of the first book, this arguing and proving
from prophecy, that the Lord is the true God, as well as the reference
to _Koresh_, the subject of this prophecy, altogether disappear. But,
in like manner, the announcement of a personal Messiah is wanting in
the first book, the sole exception being chap. xlii. 1-9, where, after
the first announcement of the author of the lower salvation, the Author
of the higher salvation is, by way of anticipation, _contrasted_ with
him. To give a more minute and finished description of the Author of
the higher salvation is the object of the _second_ book. In the _third_
book, the person of the Redeemer is spoken of briefly only, is, as it
were, only hinted at, in order to connect this book with the second;
just as, by chap. xlii., the first book is connected with the second.
The third book in so far as it is _promising_, is taken up with the
description of the [Pg 168] _glory of the Kingdom of God_, in that new
stage upon which it enters by the Redeemer,--a glory, the culminating
point of which is the creation of the new heavens and the new earth,
chap. lxv. 17, lxvi. 22. A description of the glory of Zion, like that
in chap. lxii., is not found in the first and second book. In the third
book, however, _reproof and exhortation_ prevail, in contradistinction
to the first and second book, in which the direct _promise_ prevails. A
transition from this, however, to the reproof and exhortation, is made
at the close of the second book. From chap. lv. 1, the preaching of
repentance appears first intermingled with the announcement of
salvation. Up to that the prevailing tendency of the Prophet had been,
throughout, to comfort the godly; but from chap. lv. 1, the other
tendency shows itself by the side of it, that of calling sinners to
repentance, by which alone they can obtain a participation in the
promised salvation. In chap. lvi. 9, lvii. 21, the latter tendency
appears distinctly and exclusively. The second book had commenced with
the announcement of salvation, and thence to the close had advanced to
reproof and threatening. The third book takes the opposite course; and
thus the two principal portions of reproof and threatening border upon
one another. Yet, the reproof and threatening do not go on without
interruption and distinction, so that no _boundary line_ could be
recognized between the two books. At the close of the second book, the
Prophet has preeminently to do with _apostates_, while, at the
beginning of the third, he has to do with _hypocrites_; so that thus
these two portions of reproof supplement one another, and conjointly
form a complete disclosure of the prevailing corruption, according to
its two principal tendencies. But the third book is distinguished from
the second by this circumstance, that in it reproof and threatening are
not limited to the beginning, which corresponds with the close of the
second book. At the close of chap. lix. the Prophet returns to the
announcement of salvation; but with chap. lxiii. 7, a new preaching of
repentance commences, which goes on to the end of chap. lxiv. The
Prophet, in the Spirit, transposes himself into the time when the
visitation has already taken place, and puts into the mouth of the
people the words by which they are, at that time, to supplicate for the
mercy of the Lord. This discourse [Pg 169] implies what has preceded.
In the view of the glorious manifestation of the Lord's mercy and grace
which are there exhibited, the Prophet calls here upon the people to
repent and be converted, in order that they may become partakers of
that mercy. If they, as a people, are anxious to attain that object,
they must repeat what the Prophet here pronounces before them. But that
up to this time has not been done, and hence that has taken place which
is spoken of by St Paul: "The election have obtained it, but the rest
have been blinded." In chap. lxv., which contains the Lord's answer to
this repenting prayer of the people, and is nothing else than an
indirect _paraenesis_, reproof and threatening likewise prevail, and it
is only at the close that the promise appears. The last chapter, too,
begins with reproof and threatening. Rightly have the Church Fathers
called Isaiah the Evangelist among the prophets. This appears also from
the circumstance that the reproof is so thoroughly an appendage of the
promise, that it is only at the _close_, after the whole riches of the
promise have been exhibited, that it expands itself It appears,
farther, also from the circumstance that, even in the last book, the
threatening does not prevail _exclusively_, but that, even there, it is
still interwoven with the most glorious promises which are so
exceedingly fitted to allure sinners to repentance.

In the whole of the second part, the Prophet, _as a rule_, takes his
stand in the time which was announced and foretold in the former
prophecies, and especially, with the greatest clearness and
distinctness, in chap. xxxix., on the threshold of the second
part,--the time when Jerusalem is captured by the Chaldeans, the temple
destroyed, the country desolated, and the people carried away. It is in
this time that he thinks, feels, and acts; it has become present to
him; from it he looks out into the Future, yet in such a manner that he
does not everywhere consistently maintain this ideal stand-point. He
addresses his discourse to the people pining away in captivity and
misery. He comforts them by opening up a view into a better Future, and
exhorts them to remove by repentance the obstacles to the coming
salvation.

Rationalistic Exegesis, everywhere little able to sympathize with, and
enter into existing circumstances and conditions, and always ready to
make its own shadowy, coarse views the rule [Pg 170] and arbiter,
has been little able to enter into, and sympathize with this ideal
stand-point occupied by the Prophet; nor has it had the earnest will to
do so. To its rationalistic tendencies, which took offence at the clear
knowledge of the Future, a welcome pretext was here offered. Thus the
opinion arose, that the second part was not written by Isaiah, but was
the work of some anonymous prophet, living about the end of the
exile,--an opinion which, at the time of the absolute dominion of
Rationalism, has obtained so firm a footing, that it has become all but
an _axiom_, and, by the power of tradition, carries away even such as
would not think of entertaining it, if they were to enter independently
and without prejudice upon the investigation.

The fact which here meets us does not by any means stand isolated. The
prophets did not prophesy in the state of rational reflection, but in
_exstasis_. As even their ordinary name, "seers," indicates, the
objects were presented to them in inward vision. They did not behold
the Future from a distance, but they were rapt into the future. This
inward vision is frequently reflected in their representation. Very
frequently, that appears with them as present which, in reality, was
still future. They depict the Future before the eyes of their hearers
and readers, and thus, as it were, by force, drag them into it out of
the Present, the coercing force of which exerts so pernicious an
influence upon them. Our Prophet expressly intimates this peculiar
manner of the prophetic announcement by making, in chap. xlix. 7, the
Lord say: "First I said to Zion: _Behold there, behold there_," by
which the graphic character of prophecy is precisely expressed, and by
which it is intimated that hearers and readers were led _in rem
praesentem_ by the prophets. Even grammar has long ago acknowledged
this fact, inasmuch as it speaks of _Praeterita prophetica_, _i.e._,
such as denote the _ideal_ Past, in contrast to those which denote the
_real_ Past. Unless we have attained to this view and insight, it is
only by inconsistency that we can escape from _Eichhorn's_ view, that
the prophecies are, for the most part, disguised historical
descriptions,--a view into which even expositors, such as _Ewald_ and
_Hitzig_, frequently relapse. Frequently, the whole of the Future
appears with the prophets in the form of the _Present_. At other times,
they take their stand in the [Pg 171] more immediate Future; and this
becomes to them the _ideal_ Present, from which they direct the eye to
the distant Future. From the rich store of proofs which we can adduce
for our view, we shall here mention only a few.

This mode of representation meets us frequently so early as in the
parting hymn of Moses, Deut. xxxii., which may be considered as the
germ of all prophetism; compare _e.g._ vers. 7 and 8. On the latter
verse, _Clericus_ remarks: "Moses mourns over this in his hymn, as if
it were already past, because he foresees that it will be so, and he,
in the Spirit, transfers himself into those future times, and says that
which then only should be said."

In Isaiah himself, the very first chapter presents a remarkable proof
The Present in chap. i. 5-9 is not a _real_, but an _ideal_ Present. In
the Spirit, the Prophet transfers himself into the time of the calamity
impending upon the apostate people, and, stepping back upon the real
Present, he, in the farther course of the prophecy, predicts this
calamity as future. The reasons for this view have been thoroughly
stated, even to exhaustion, by _Caspari_, in his _Beitraege zur
Einleitung in das Buch Jesaia_. In the second half of ver. 2, the
kingdom appears as flourishing and powerful. To the same result we are
led also by the description of the rich sacrificial worship in vers.
15-19. If, then, we view vers. 5-9 as a description of the Present, we
obtain an irreconcilable contradiction. _Farther_--Everywhere else
Isaiah always connects, with the description of the sin, that of the
punishment following upon it, but never that of the punishment which
has followed it.--In chap. v. 13, in a prophecy from the first time of
his ministry, the _future carrying away_ of the people presents itself
to the Prophet as present. Similarly, in vers. 25, 26, the Praet. and
Fut. with _Vav Conv._ must be understood prophetically; for in chap.
i.-v., the Prophet has, throughout, to do with future calamity. In the
Present, according to ver. 19, the people are yet in a condition of
prosperity and luxury,--as yet, it is the time of _mocking_; it is only
of future calamity that vers. 5 and 6 in the parable speak of, the
threatenings of which are here detailed and expanded.--In the prophecy
against Tyre, chap. xxiii., the Prophet beholds as present the siege by
the Chaldeans impending over the city, and describes [Pg 172] as an
eye-witness the flight of the inhabitants, and the impression which the
intelligence of their calamity makes upon the nations connected with
them. From the more immediate Future, which to him has become present,
he then casts a glance to the more distant. He announces that after 70
years--counting not from the _real_, but from the _ideal_ Present--the
city shall again attain to its ancient greatness. His look then rises
still higher, and he beholds how at length, in the days of Messiah, the
Tyrians shall be received into the communion of the true God.--The
future dispersion and carrying away of the people is anticipated by the
Prophet in the passage, chap. xi. 11, also, which may be considered as
a comprehensive view of the whole second part.--It is true that, in the
second part, as a rule, the misery, and not the salvation, appears as
present; but, not unfrequently, the latter, too, is viewed as present
by the Prophet, and spoken of in Preterites, comp. _e.g._, chap. xl. 2,
xlvi. 1, 2, li. 3, lii. 9, 10, lx. 1. If, then, the Prophet is to be
measured by the ordinary rule, these passages, too, must have been
written at a time when the salvation had already taken place.--In chap.
xlv. 20, the escaped of the nations are those Gentiles who have been
spared in the divine judgments. They are to become wise by the
sufferings of others. The Prophet takes his stand in a time when these
judgments, which were to be inflicted by Cyrus, had already been
completed. Even those who maintain the spuriousness of the second part
must here acknowledge that the Prophet takes his stand in an _ideal_
Present.--In chap. liii. the Prophet takes his stand between the
sufferings and the glorification of the Messiah. The sufferings appear
to him as past; the glorification he represents as future.

Hosea had, in chap. xiii., predicted to Israel great divine judgments,
the desolation of the country, and the carrying away of its inhabitants
by powerful enemies. This punishment and judgment appear in chap. xiv.
1 (xiii. 16) as still future; but in ver. 2 (1 ff.) he transfers
himself in spirit to the time when these judgments had already been
inflicted. He anticipates the Future as having already taken place, and
does not by any means exhort his _contemporaries_ to a sincere
repentance, but those upon whom the calamity had already been
inflicted: "O Israel, return unto the Lord thy God; for [Pg 173] thou
hast fallen by thine iniquity." This parallel passage shews especially,
with what right it has been asserted that the addresses to the people
pining away in exile "were out of place in the mouth of Isaiah, who, as
he lived 150 years before, could _prophesy_ only of the exiled"
(_Knobel_).--Micah says in chap. iv. 8 (compare vol. i., p. 449 ff.):
"And thou tower of the flock, hill of the daughter of Zion, unto thee
it will come, and to thee cometh the former dominion." If the Prophet,
a cotemporary of Isaiah, speaks here of a _former dominion_, and
announces that it shall again come back to the house of David, he
transfers himself from his time, in which the royal family of David
still existed and flourished, into that period of which he had just
before spoken, and during which the dominion of the Davidic dynasty was
to cease. In vers. 9, 10: "Now why dost thou raise a cry! Is there no
king in thee, or is thy counsellor gone? For pangs have seized thee as
a woman in travail," &c., mourning Zion, at the time of the carrying
away of her sons into captivity, stands before the eye of the Prophet,
and is addressed by him. (In commenting upon this passage, we pointed
already to Hosea xiii. 9-11 as an analogous instance of representing as
present the time of the calamity.) The moment of the carrying away into
exile forms to him the Present; the deliverance from it, the Future:
"There shalt thou be delivered, there the Lord thy God shall redeem
thee out of the hand of thine enemies." In chap. vii. 7, Micah
introduces, as speaking, the people already carried away into exile,
and makes them declare both the justice of the divine punishment, and
their confidence in the divine mercy. In the answer of the Lord also,
ver. 11, the city is supposed to be destroyed; for He promises that her
walls shall be rebuilt.--The anticipation of the Future prevails
throughout the whole prophecy of Obadiah also. The song of Habakkuk in
chap. iii. takes its stand in the midst of the anticipated misery. In
the announcement of the invasion of the Chaldeans in chap. i. 6 ff.,
the Future presents itself in the form of the Present. Here, as in the
case of Obadiah, _Hitzig_ and others, overlooking and misunderstanding
this prophetic peculiarity, and considering the _ideal_, to be the
_real_ Present, have been led to fix the age of the Prophet in a manner
notoriously erroneous.--Jeremiah, in chap. iii. 22, 25, [Pg 174]
introduces as speaking the Israel of the Future. In chap. xxx. and
xxxi., he anticipates the future carrying away of Judah. Even in the
Psalms we perceive a faint trace of this prophetic peculiarity. On Ps.
xciii. 1: "The Lord reigneth, He hath clothed himself with majesty,"
&c., we remarked: "The Preterites are to be explained from the
circumstance that the Singer as a _seer_ has the Future before his
eyes. He _beholds_ rejoicingly how the Lord enters upon His Kingdom,
puts on the garment of majesty, and girds himself with the sword of
strength in the face of the proud world." A similar anticipation of
redemption, even before the catastrophe has taken place, we meet with
in Ps. xciv. 1. The situation in the whole Psalm, yea in the whole
cycle to which it belongs, the lyrical echo of the second part of
Isaiah, is not a _real_, but an _ideal_ one. This cycle bears witness
that the singers and seers of Israel were living in the Future, in a
manner which it would be so much the greater folly to measure by our
rule as, for the people of the Old Covenant, the Future had a
significance altogether different from that which it has for the people
of the New Covenant. That which is common to all the Psalms, from
xciii. onward, is the confident expectation of a glorious manifestation
of the Lord, which the Psalmist, following the example of the prophets,
beholds as present. A counterpart is the cycle Ps. cxxxviii.-cxlv., in
which David, stirred up by the promise in 2 Sam. vii., accompanies his
house throughout history.

Several interpreters cannot altogether resist the force of these facts.
They grant "that other prophets also sometimes, in the Spirit, transfer
themselves into later times, especially into the idealistic times of
the Messiah," and draw their arguments from the circumstance only, that
the latter again came back to their personal stand point, whilst our
Prophet continues cleaving to the later time. Now it is true, and must
be conceded, that this mode of representation is here employed to an
extent greater than it is anywhere else in the Old Testament. But, in
matters of this kind, measuring by the ell is quite out of place. In
other respects also, the second part of Isaiah stands out as quite
unique. There is, in the whole Old Testament, no other continuous
prophecy which has so absolutely and pre-eminently proceeded from _cura
posteritatis_. If [Pg 175] it be acknowledged that the prophesying
activity of Isaiah falls into two great divisions,--the one--the
results of which are contained in the first 39 chapters--chiefly,
pre-eminently indeed, destined for the Present; the other,--which lies
before us in the second part, belonging to the evening of the Prophet's
life--forming a prophetical legacy, and hence, therefore, never
delivered in public, but only committed to writing;--then we shall find
it quite natural that the Prophet, writing, as he did, chiefly for the
Future, should here also take his stand in the Future, to a larger
extent than he has elsewhere done.

That it is in this manner only that this fact is to be accounted for,
appears from the circumstance that, although our Prophet so extensively
and frequently represents the Past as Present, yet he passes over, in
numerous passages, from the _ideal_ into the _real_ Present.[2] We find
a number of references which do not at all suit the condition of things
after the exile, but necessarily require the age of Isaiah, or, at
least, the time before the exile. If Isaiah be the author, these
passages are easily accounted for. It is true that, in the Spirit, he
had transferred himself into the time of the Babylonish exile; and this
time had become Present to him. But it would surely be suspicious to
us, if the real Present had not sometimes prevailed, and attracted the
eye of the Prophet. It is just thus, however, that we find it. The
Prophet frequently steps out of his ideal view and position, and refers
to conditions and circumstances of his time. _Now_, he has before his
eyes the condition of the unhappy people in the Babylonish exile;
_then_, the State still existing at his time, but internally deranged
by idolatry and apostacy. This apparent contradiction cannot be
reconciled in any other way than by assuming that Isaiah is the author.
As a rule, the punishment appears as already inflicted; city and
temple as destroyed; the country as devastated; the people as carried
away; compare _e.g._, chap. lxiv. 10, 11. But in a series of passages,
in which the Prophet steps back from the _ideal_, to the _real_
stand-point, _the punishment appears as still future_; _city and temple
as still existing_. In chap. xliii. [Pg 176] 22-28, the Prophet meets
the delusion, as if God had chosen Israel on account of their deserts.
Far from having brought about their deliverance by their own merits,
they, on the contrary, sinned thus against Him, that, to the inward
apostacy, they added the outward also. The greater part of Israel had
left off the worship of the Lord by sacrifices. It is the mercy alone
of the Lord which will deliver them from the misery into which they
have plunged themselves by their sins. But how can the Lord charge the
people in exile for the omission of a service which, according to His
own law, they could offer to Him in their native country only, in the
temple consecrated to Him, but then destroyed? The words specially:
"Put me in remembrance," in ver. 26, "of what I should have forgotten,"
imply that there existed a possibility of acquiring apparent merits,
and that, hence, the view of our opponents who, in vers. 22-24, think
of a compulsory, and hence, guiltless omission of the sacrificial
service during the exile, must be rejected. Vers. 27, 28 also, which
speak of the punishment which Israel deserves, just on account of the
omitted service of the Lord, and which it has found in the way of its
works, prove that this view must be rejected, and that vers. 22-24
contain a reproof. The passage can, hence, have been written only at
the time when the temple was still standing. Of this there can so much
the less be any doubt that, in vers. 27, 28, the exile is expressly
designated as future: "Thy first father (the high-priestly office) hath
sinned, and thy mediators have transgressed against me." (The
sacrificial service was by a disgraceful syncretism profaned even by
those whose office it was to attend to it). "Therefore I _will_ profane
the princes of the sanctuary, and _will_ give Jacob to the curse, and
Israel to reproaches." Even [Hebrew: vaHll] is the common Future, and
to [Hebrew: vatnh] the [Hebrew: h] _optativum_ is added; and hence, we
cannot by any means translate and explain it by: _I gave_.--In chap.
lvi. 9, it is said: "All ye beasts of the field come ye to devour all
the beasts in the forest." This utterance stands in connection with the
[Hebrew: lnqbciv], at the close of the preceding verse. The gathering
of Israel by God the good Shepherd, promised there, must be preceded by
the scattering, by being given up to the world's power--mercy, by
judgment. By the wild beasts are to be understood the Gentiles who
shall be sent by God upon [Pg 177] His people for punishment. This
mission they must first fulfil before they can, according to ver. 8, be
added to, and gathered along with, the gathered ones of Israel. By the
"beasts in the forest," brutalized, degraded, and secularized Israel is
to be understood, comp. Jer. xii. 7-12; Ezek. xxxiv. 5; and my
Commentary on Rev. ii. 1.

The beasts have not yet come; they are yet to come. We can here think
of nothing else than the invasion of the Chaldeans, which the Prophet,
stepping back to the stand-point of his time, beholds here as future;
whilst, in what precedes, from his ideal stand-point, which he had
taken in the Babylonish exile, he had, for the most part, considered it
as past.--In chap. lvi. 10-12, we meet with corrupted rulers of the
people, who are indolent, when everything depends upon warding off the
danger, greedy, luxurious, gormandizing upon what they have stolen. The
people are not under foreign dominion, but have rulers of their own,
who tyrannize over, and impoverish them; comp. Is. chap. v.; Micah,
chap. iii.--In chap. lvii. 1, it is said: "The righteous perisheth and
no man layeth it to heart, and the men of kindness are taken away, no
one considering that, on account of the evil, the righteous is taken
away." The Prophet mentions it as a sign of the people's hardening
that, in the death of the righteous men who were truly bearing on their
hearts the welfare of the whole, they did not recognize a harbinger of
severe divine judgments, from which, according to a divine merciful
decree, these righteous were to be preserved by an early death. "On
account of the evil," _i.e._, in order to withdraw them from the
judgments, which were to be inflicted upon the ungodly people, comp.
Gen. xv. 15; 2 Kings xxii. 20; Is. xxxix. 8. The evil, _i.e._ according
to 2 Kings xxii. 20, the Chaldean catastrophe, appears here as still
future. In chap. lvii. 2: "They enter in peace, they rest in their beds
who have walked before themselves in uprightness," the "peace" forms
the contrast to the awful condition of suffering which the survivors
have to encounter.--In chap. lvii. 9, it is said: "And thou lookest on
the king anointed with oil, and increasest thy perfumes, and sendest
thy messengers far off, sendest them down into hell." The apostacy from
the Lord their God is manifested not only in idolatry, but also in
their not leaving untried any means to [Pg 178] procure for themselves
human helpers, in their courting human aid. The personification of
Israel as a woman, which took place in the preceding verses, is here
continued. She leaves no means untried to heighten her charms; she
makes every effort to please the mighty kings. The king is an ideal
person comprehending a real plurality within himself A parallel
passage, in which the seeking for help among foreign nations is
represented under the same image, is Ezek. xvi. 26 ff., comp. Hos. xii.
2 (1). It occurs also in immediate connexion with seeking help from the
idols, in chap. xxx. 1 ff. The verb [Hebrew: wvr] means always "to
see," "to look at;" and this signification is, here too, quite
appropriate: Israel is _coquetting_ with her lover, the king. The
reproach which the Prophet here raises against the people has no
meaning at all in the time of the exile, when the national independence
was gone. We find ourselves all at once transferred to the time of
Isaiah, who, in chap. xxxi. 1, utters a woe upon them "that go down to
Egypt for help,"--who, in chap. xxx. 4, complains: "His princes are at
Zoar, and his ambassadors come to Hanes,"--who, in chap. vii., exhibits
the dangerous consequences of seeking help from Asshur. The historical
point at issue is brought before us by passages such as 2 Kings xvi. 7:
"And Ahaz sent messengers to Tiglathpileser, king of Assyria, saying: I
am thy servant and thy son; come up and save me out of the hand of the
king of Aram, and out of the hand of the king of Israel, who rise
against me."--In chap. lvii. 11-13, the thought is this: Israel is not
becoming weary of seeking help and salvation from others than God. But
He will soon show that He alone is to be feared, that He alone can
help; that they are nothing against whom, and from whom help is sought.
The words in ver. 11: "Am I not silent, even of old; therefore thou
fearest me not," state the cause of the foolish forgetfulness of God,
and hence form the transition to the subsequent announcement of
judgment. The prophecy is uttered at a time when Israel still enjoyed
the sparing divine forbearance, inasmuch as for time immemorial (since
they were in Egypt), no destructive catastrophe had fallen upon them.
It was in the Babylonish catastrophe only that the Egyptian received
its counterpart. But how does this suit the time of the Babylonish
exile, when the people were groaning under the severe judgments of God,
[Pg 179] and had not experienced His forbearance, but, on the contrary,
for almost 70 years, the full energy of His punitive justice? In ver.
13, it is said: "In thy crying, let thy hosts (thy whole Pantheon so
rich, and yet so miserable) help thee." "In thy crying, _i.e._, when
_thou_, in the judgment to be inflicted upon thee in future, wilt cry
for help." In chap. lxvi. the punishment appears as future; temple and
city as still existing; the Lord as yet enthroned in Zion. So specially
in ver. 6: "A voice of noise from the city, a voice from the temple,
the voice of the Lord that rendereth recompence to His enemies," A
controversy with the hypocrites who presumed upon the temple and their
sacrificial service, in vers. 1, 3, has, at the time of the exile, no
meaning at all, _Gesenius_, indeed, was of opinion that the Prophet
might judge of the worship of God in temples, and of the value of
sacrifices, although they were not offered at that time; but it must be
strongly denied that the Prophet could do so in such a context and
connection. For, the fact that the Prophet has in view a definite class
of men of his time, and that he does not bring forward at random a
_locus communis_ which, at his time, was no longer applicable--a thing
which, moreover, is not by any means his habit--appears from the close
of the verse, and from ver. 4, where divine judgment is threatened to
those men: "Because they choose their own ways, and their soul
delighteth in their abominations: I also will choose their derision,
and will bring their fears upon them." Even in ver. 20: "And they (the
Gentiles who are to be converted to the Lord), shall bring all your
brethren out of all nations for a meat-offering unto the Lord, upon
horses, &c., _just as the children of Israel are bringing_ ([Hebrew:
ibvav], expresses an habitual offering), _the meat-offering in a clean
vessel into the house of the Lord_," the house of God appears as still
standing, the sacrificial service in full operation; the future
spiritual meat-offering of the Gentiles is compared to the bodily
meat-offering which the children of Israel are now offering in the
temple.

_Throughout the whole second part we perceive the people under the, as
yet, unbroken power of idolatry._ It appears everywhere as the
principal tendency of the sinful apostacy among the people; to
counteract it appears to be the chief object of the Prophet. The
controversy with idolatry pervades everything. At the very
commencement, in chap. xl. 18-26, we are met [Pg 180] with a
description of the nothingness of idolatry, and an impressive warning
against it. In the whole series of passages, commencing with chap.
xli.--of which we shall afterwards speak more in detail--the sole Deity
of the God of Israel, and the vanity of the idols are proved from
prophecy in connection with its fulfilment; and this series has for its
supposition the power which, at the time when the prophecy was uttered,
idolatry yet possessed over the minds of men. Chap. xlii. 17 announces
that the future historical development shall bring confusion upon those
"that trust in graven images, that say to the molten images: Ye are our
gods." In chap. xliv. 12-20, the absurdity of idolatry is illustrated
in a brilliant description. We have here before us the real _locus
classicus_ of the whole Scripture in this matter, the main description
of the nothingness of idolatry. The emotion and excitement with which
the Prophet speaks, shew that he has here to do with the principal
enemy to the salvation of his people. According to chap. xlvi. the
idols of Babel shall be overturned and carried away. From this, Israel
may learn the nothingness of idolatry, and the apostates may return to
the Lord. In the hortatory and reproving section, the punishment of
idolatry forms the beginning; in chap. lvii. idolatry is described as
far-spread, manifold, advancing to the greatest horrors. The offering
up of children as sacrifices especially appears as being in vogue; and
it can be proved that this penetrated into Israel, from the
neighbouring nations, at the time of the Prophet (comp. 2 Chron.
xxviii. 3; xxxiii. 6), while, at the time of the exile, there was
scarcely any cause for warning against it,--at least, existing
information does not mention any such sacrifices among the Babylonians
(comp. _Muenter_, _die Religion der Babylonier_, S. 72). The people
appear as standing under the dominion of idolatry in chap. lxv. 3: "The
people that provoketh me to anger continually to my face, that
sacrificeth in gardens, and burneth incense upon the bricks;" comp.
ver. 7: "Who have burned incense upon the mountains, and blasphemed me
upon the hills;" chap. lxvi. 17: "They that sanctify themselves and
purify themselves in the gardens behind one in the midst, who eat
swine's flesh, and the abominations, and mice, shall be consumed
together, saith the Lord." Idolatry is the service of nature, and was,
therefore, chiefly practised [Pg 181] in places where nature presents
herself in all her splendour, as in gardens and on the hills. The
gardens are mentioned in a similar way in chap. i. 29: "Ye shall blush
on account of the _gardens_ that ye have chosen." (On the words which
precede in that verse: "For they shall be ashamed of the _oaks_ which
ye have desired," chap. lvii. 5 offers an exact parallel: "Who inflame
themselves among the _oaks_ under every green tree.") In chap. lxv. 11,
they are denounced who forsake the Lord, forget His holy mountain (on
which, at the time when this was written, the temple must still have
stood), who prepare a table to _Fortune_, and offer drink-offerings to
_Fate_. The second main form of sinful apostacy--hypocrisy and dead
ceremonial service--is only rarely mentioned by the Prophet (in chap.
lvii., lxvi.), while he always anew reverts to idolatry. Now _this
absolutely prevailing regard to idolatry can be accounted for, only if
Isaiah be the author of the second part._ From Solomon, down to the
time of the exile, the disposition to idolatry in Israel was never
thoroughly broken. During Isaiah's ministry, it came to the fullest
display under Ahaz. Under Hezekiah it was kept down, indeed; but with
great difficulty only, as appears from the fact that, under the reign
of Manasseh, who was a king after the heart of the people, it again
broke openly forth; comp. 2 Kings xxi. 1-18; 2 Chron. xxxiii. 1-18; 2
Kings xxi. 6, according to which Manasseh made his own son to pass
through the fire. But it is a tact generally admitted, and proved by
all the books written during and after the exile, that, with the
carrying away into exile, the idolatrous disposition among the people
was greatly shaken. This fact has its cause not only in the deep
impression which misery made upon their minds, but still more in the
circumstance that it was chiefly the godly part of the nation that was
carried away into captivity. The disproportionately large number of
_priests_ among the exiled and those who returned--they constitute the
tenth part of the people--is to be accounted for only on the
supposition, that the heathenish conquerors saw that the real essence
and basis of the people consisted in the faith in the God of Israel,
and were, therefore, above all, anxious to remove the priests as the
main representatives of this principle. If, for this reason, they
carried away the priests, we cannot think otherwise but that, in [Pg
182] the selection of the others also, they looked chiefly to the
theocratic disposition on which the nationality of Israel rested. To
this we are led by Jer. xxiv. also, where those carried away are
designated as the flower of the nation, as the nursery and hope of the
Kingdom of God. Incomprehensible, for the time of the exile, is also
the _strict antithesis_ between the servants of the Lord, and the
servants of the idols--the latter hating, assailing, and persecuting
the former--an antithesis which meets us especially in the last two
chapters; comp. especially chap. lxv. 5 ff. 13-15; lxvi. 16. That such
a state of things existed at the time of the Prophet is, among other
passages, shown by 2 Kings xxi. 16, according to which Manasseh shed
much innocent blood at Jerusalem, and, according to ver. 10, 11,
especially the blood of the prophets, who had borne a powerful
testimony against idolatry.

_If it be assumed that the second part was composed during the exile,
then those passages are incomprehensible, in which the Prophet proves
that the God of Israel is the true God, from His predicting the
appearance of the conqueror from the east, and the deliverance of the
people to be wrought by Him in connection with the fulfilment of these
predictions._ The supernatural character of this announcement which the
Prophet asserts, and which forms the ground of its probative power,
took place, only if it proceeded from Isaiah, but not if it was uttered
only about the end of the exile, at a time when Cyrus had already
entered upon the stage of history. These passages, at all events, admit
only the alternative,--either that Isaiah was the real author, or that
they were forged at a later period by some deceiver; and this latter
alternative is so decidedly opposed to the whole spirit of the second
part, that scarcely any one among the opponents will resolve to adopt
it. Considering the very great and decisive importance of these
passages, we must still allow them to pass in review one by one. In
chap. xli. 1-7, the Lord addresses those who are serving idols, summons
them triumphantly to defend themselves against the mighty attack which
He was just executing against them, and describes the futility of their
attempts at so doing. The address to the Gentiles is a mere form; to
work upon Israel is the real purpose. To secure them from the
allurements of the world's religion, the Prophet points to [Pg 183] the
great confusion which the Future will bring upon it. This confusion
consists in this:--that the prophecy of the conqueror from the East, as
the messenger and instrument of the Lord--a prediction which the
Prophet had uttered in the power of the Lord--is fulfilled without the
idolators being able to prevent it. The answer on the words in ver. 2:
"Who hath raised up from the East him whom righteousness calleth
whither he goes, giveth the nations before him, and maketh kings
subject to him, maketh his sword like dust, and his bow like driven
stubble?" is this: According to the agreement of prophecy and
fulfilment, it is none other than the Lord, who is, therefore, the only
true God, to whose glory and majesty every deed of His servant Koresh
bears witness. The argumentation is unintelligible, as soon as,
assuming that it was Isaiah who wrote down the prophecy, it is not
admitted that he, losing sight of the _real_ Present, takes his
stand-point in an _ideal_ Present, viz., the time of the appearance of
the conqueror from the East, by which it becomes possible to him to
draw his arguments from the prophecy in connection with the fulfilment.
It is altogether absurd, when it is asserted that the second part is
spurious, and was composed at a time when Cyrus was already standing
before Babylon. It would indeed have required an immense amount of
impudence on the part of the Prophet to bring forward, as an
unassailable proof of the omniscience and omnipotence of God, an event
which every one saw with his bodily eyes. By such argumentation, he
would have exposed himself to general _ridicule_.--In chap. xli. 21-29,
the discourse is formally addressed to the Gentiles; but in point of
fact, the Prophet here, too, has to do with Judah driven into exile, to
whom he was called by God to offer the means to remain stedfast under
the temptations from the idolators by whom they were surrounded. Before
the eyes, and in the hearing of Israel, the Lord convinces the Gentiles
of the nothingness of their cause. They are to prove the divinity of
their idols by showing forth the announcements of the Future which
proceeded from them. But they are not able to comply with this demand.
It is only the Lord, the living God, who can do that. Long before the
appearance of the conqueror from the North and East, He caused it to be
_foretold_, and comforted His Church with the view of the Future.
Hence, He alone is [Pg 184] God, and vanity are all those who are put
beside Him. It is said in ver. 22: "Let them bring forth and shew to us
what shall happen; the former things, what they be, show and we will
consider them and know the latter end of them; or the coming (events
make us to hear)." _The former things_ are those which are prior on
this territory; hence the former prophecies, as the comparison of the
parallel passage, chap. xlii 9, clearly shows. The _end_ of prophecy is
its fulfilment. [Hebrew: hbavt] "the coming, or future," are the events
of the more distant Future. As the Prophet demands from the idols and
their servants that only which the true God has already performed by
His servants, we have here, on the one hand, a reference to the whole
cycle of prophecies formerly fulfilled, as _e.g._, that of the
overthrow of the kingdoms of Damascus and Ephraim, and the defeat of
Asshur,--and, on the other hand, to the prophecy of the conqueror from
the East, &c., contained in the second part. The _former_ prophecies,
however, are here mentioned altogether incidentally only; the real
demand refers, as is shown by the words: "What shall happen," only to
the prophecies in reference to the Future, corresponding to those of
our Prophet regarding the conqueror from the East, whose appearance is
here represented as belonging altogether to the _Future_, and not to be
known by any human ingenuity. In ver. 26: "Who hath declared (such
things) from the beginning, that we may know, and long beforehand, that
we may say: he is righteous?" the [Hebrew: mraw] "from the beginning"
puts insurmountable obstacles in the way of the opponents of the
genuineness. If the second part of Isaiah be _spurious_, then the
idolaters might put the same scornful question to the God of Israel.
The [Hebrew: mraw] denotes just the opposite of a _vaticinium post
eventum_.--In chap. xlii. 9: "The former (things), behold, they are
come to pass, and new things do I declare; before they spring forth, I
let you hear," the Prophet proves the true divinity of the Lord, from
the circumstance that, having already proved himself by prophecies
fulfilled, He declares here, in the second part, the future events
before they spring forth, before the facts begin to sprout forth from
the soil of the Present, and hence could have been known and predicted
by human combination. The words, "before they spring forth," become
completely enigmatical, if it be denied that Isaiah [Pg 185] wrote the
second part; inasmuch as, in that case, it would have in a great part,
to do with things which did not belong to the territory of prophetic
foresight, but of what was plainly visible.--In chap. xliii. 8-13, the
Prophet again proves the nothingness of idolatry, and the sole divinity
of the God of Israel, from the great work, declared beforehand by the
Lord, of the deliverance of Israel, and of the overthrow of their
enemies. He is so deeply convinced of the striking force of this
argument, that he ever anew reverts to it. After having called upon the
Gentiles to prove the divinity of their idols by true prophecies given
by them, he says in ver. 9: "Let them bring forth their witnesses, that
they may be justified." By the witnesses it is to be proved, by whom,
to whom, and at what time the prophecies were given, in order that the
Gentiles may not refer to deceitfully forged prophecies, to _vaticinia
post eventum_. According to the hypothesis of the spuriousness of the
second part, the author pronounced his own condemnation by thus calling
for witnesses. "Ye are my witnesses, saith the Lord, and witness is my
Servant whom I have chosen," is said in ver. 10. While the Gentiles are
in vain called upon to bring forward witnesses for the divinity of
their idols, the true God has, for His witnesses, just those whose
services he claimed. The prophecies which lie at the foundation of
their testimony, which are to be borne witness to, are those of the
second part. The Prophet may safely appeal to the testimony of the
whole nation, that they were uttered at a time, when their contents
could not be derived from human combination. "The great unknown"
(_Ewald_), could not by any possibility have spoken thus.--In chap.
xlv. 19-21, it is proved from the prophecy, in connection with the
fulfilment, that Jehovah alone is God,--the like of which no Gentile
nation can show of their idols. The argumentation is followed by the
call to all the Gentiles to be converted to this God, and thus to
become partakers of His salvation--a call resting on the striking force
of this argumentation--and with this call is, in ver. 23-25, connected
the solemn declaration of God, that, at some future time, this shall
take place; that, at some future time, there shall be one shepherd and
one flock. How would these high, solemn, words have been spoken in
vain, if "the great unknown" had spoken them! In ver. 19 [Pg 186] it is
said: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth; I
said not unto the seed of Jacob: Seek ye me in vain; I the Lord speak
righteousness, I declare rectitude." The Lord here says, first, in
reference to His prophecies, those namely which He gave through our
Prophet, that _they were made known publicly_, that, hence, there could
not be any doubt of their genuineness,--altogether different from what
is the case with the prophecies of idolatrous nations which make their
appearance _post eventum_ only, _no one knowing whence_. Every one
might convince himself of their truth and divinity. This is expressed
by the words: "I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the
earth." Then he says that the Lord had not deceived His people, like
the idols who leave their servants without disclosures regarding: the
Future; but that, by the prophecies granted to our Prophet, He had met
the longings of his people for revelations of the Future. While the
gods of the world leave them in the lurch, just when their help is
required, and never answer when they are asked, the Lord, in reference
to prophecies, as well as in every other respect, has not spoken: "Seek
ye me in vain," but rather: When ye seek, ye shall find me. And,
finally, he says that his prophecies are true and right; that the
heathenish prophets commit an _unrighteousness_ by performing something
else than that which they promised to perform. To declare
_righteousness_ is to declare that which is righteous, which does not
conceal internal emptiness and rottenness under a fair outside. The
words: "I the Lord speak righteousness, I declare rectitude," could not
but have died on the lips of the "great unknown."--In chap. xlvi. 8-13
the apostates in Israel are addressed. They are exhorted to return to
the true God, and to be mindful, 1. of the nothingness of idols, ver.
8; 2. of the proofs of His sole divinity which the Lord had given
throughout the whole of the past history; 3. of the new manifestation
of it in announcing and sending Koresh (Cyrus), ver. 10, 11; "Declaring
the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things that are
not yet done, saying: My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my
pleasure. Calling from the East an eagle, from a far country the man of
His counsel; I have spoken it, and will also bring it to pass; I have
formed it, and will also do it." To the [Hebrew: rawnvt], the former
[Pg 187] events, the fulfilled prophecies from former times (comp.
xlii. 9), here the new proof of the sole divinity of the God of Israel
is added, in that He sends Koresh: God _now_ declares. The Prophet, by
designating the time in which the announcement was issued as [Hebrew:
rawit] and [Hebrew: qdM], as beginning and ancient times, and by
founding the proof of the divinity of the Lord just upon the high age
of the announcement, again puts an insurmountable obstacle in the way
of the opponents of the genuineness. The announcement and declaration
prove any thing in connection with the execution only; the bringing
to pass, therefore, is connected with the declaring, the doing with
the speaking. These words are _now_ spoken, since, from the ideal
stand-point, the carrying out is at hand; they form the antecedent to
the _calling_, of which ver. 11 treats. [Hebrew: qvM] properly "to
rise," opposed to the laying down, means "to bring to stand," "to bring
about," "to be fulfilled." "The counsel," _i.e._, the contents of the
prediction which was spoken of before; it is the divine counsel and
decree to which Koresh served as an instrument.--_Finally_--In chap.
xlviii., the same subject is treated of; the divinity of the Lord is
proved from His prophecies, in three sections, ver. 1-11, ver. 12-16,
ver. 22. Here, at the close of the first book of the second part, the
argumentation occurs once more in a very strong accumulation, because
the Prophet is now about to leave it, and, in general, the whole
territory of the lower salvation. First, in ver. 1-11: Israel should
return to the Lord, who formerly had manifested and proved His sole
divinity by a series of prophecies and their fulfilments, and _now_ was
granting new and remarkable disclosures regarding the Future. Ver. 6:
"New things I shew thee from this time, hidden things, and thou didst
not know them, ver. 7. Now they have been created and not of old, and
before this day thou heardest them not; lest thou shouldest say:
Behold, I knew them." The deliverance of Israel by Cyrus--an
announcement uttered in the preceding, and to be repeated immediately
afterwards--is called _new_ in contrast to the old prophecies of the
Lord already fulfilled; _hidden_ in contrast to the facts which are
already subjects of history, or may be known beforehand by natural
ingenuity. _To be created_ is equivalent to being made manifest,
inasmuch as the hidden Divine counsel enters into life, only by being
manifested, and [Pg 188] the prophesied events are created for Israel,
only by the prophecy. Ver. 8: "Thou didst not hear it, nor didst thou
know it, likewise thine ear was not opened beforehand; for I knew that
thou art faithless, and wast called a transgressor from the womb." I
have, says the Lord, communicated to thee the knowledge of events of
the Future which are altogether unheard of, of which, before, thou
didst not know the least, nor couldst know. The reason of this
communication is stated in the words: "for I knew," &c. It is the same
reason which, according to vers. 4, 5, called forth also the former
definite prophecies regarding the Future, now already fulfilled, viz.,
the unbelief of the people, which requires a _palpable_ proof that the
Lord alone is God, because it is but too ingenious in finding out
seeming reasons for justifying its apostacy. All that is perfectly in
keeping with, and suitable to the stand-point of Isaiah, but not to
that of "the great unknown," at whose time the conqueror from the East
was already beheld with the bodily eye; and Habakkuk had long ago
prophesied the destruction of the Babylonish world's power, and
Israel's deliverance; and Jeremiah had announced the destruction of
Babylon by the Modes much more distinctly and definitely than is done
here in the second part of Isaiah. In ver. 16 it is said: "Come ye near
unto me, hear this: from the beginning I have not spoken in secret;
from the time that it was, I was there, and now the Lord God hath sent
me and His Spirit." The sense is: Ever since the foundation of the
people, I have given them the most distinct prophecies, and made them
publicly known (referring to the whole chain of events, from the
calling of Abraham and onward, which had been objects of prophecy); by
mine omnipotence I have fulfilled them; and now I have sent my servant
Isaiah, and filled him with my Spirit, in order that, by a new
distinguished prophecy, he may bear witness to my sole divinity. It is
only the accompanying mission of the Spirit which gives its importance
to that of the Prophet. It is from God's Spirit searching the depths of
the Godhead, and knowing His most hidden counsels, that those
prophecies of the second part, going beyond the natural consciousness,
have proceeded.

We believe we have incontrovertibly proved that we are not entitled to
draw any arguments against Isaiah's being the [Pg 189] author of the
second part, from the circumstance "that the exile is not announced,
but that the author takes his stand in it, as well as in that of
Isaiah's time, inasmuch as this stand-point is an assumed and ideal
one. But if the _form_, can prove nothing, far less can the _prophetic
contents_." It is true that these contents cannot be explained from the
natural consciousness of Isaiah; but it is not to be overlooked, that
the assailed prophecies of Isaiah are even as directly as possible
opposed to the rationalistic notion of prophetism, which is arbitrary,
and goes in the face of all facts, and from which the arguments against
their genuineness are drawn. In a whole series of passages of the
second part (the same which we have just been discussing), the Prophet
intimates that he gives disclosures which lie beyond the horizon of his
time; and draws from this circumstance the arguments for his own divine
mission, and the divinity of the God of Israel. He considers it as the
disgrace of idolatry that it cannot give any definite prophecies, and
with a noble scorn, challenges it to vindicate itself by such
prophecies. That rationalistic notion of prophetism removes the
boundaries which, according to the express statements of our Prophet,
separate the Kingdom of God from heathenism. The rationalistic
_notional_ God, however, it is true, can as little prophesy as the
heathenish gods of stone and wood, of whom the Psalmist says: "They
have ears, but they hear not, _neither speak they through their
throat_."

It is farther to be considered that the predictions of the Future, in
those portions of Isaiah which are assailed just on account of them,
are not so destitute of a foundation as is commonly assumed. There
existed, in the present time and circumstances of the Prophet,
important actual points of connection for them. They farther rest on
the foundation of ideal views and conceptions of eternal truths, which
had been familiar to the Church of the Lord from its very beginnings.
They only enlarge what had already been prophesied by former prophets;
and well secured and ascertained parallels in the prophetic
announcement are not wanting for them.

The carrying away of the covenant-people into exile had been actually
prophesied by the fact, that the land had spued out its former
inhabitants on account of their sins. The threatening of the exile
pervades the whole Pentateuch from [Pg 190] beginning to end; compare
_Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, _p._ 270 _ff._ It is found in the
Decalogue also: "That thy days may be long upon the land which the Lord
thy God giveth thee." David shows a clear knowledge of the sufferings
impending over his family, and hence also over the people of God; comp.
my Commentary on Song of Sol. S. 243. Solomon points to the future
carrying away in his prayer at the consecration of the temple. Amos,
the predecessor of Isaiah, foresees with absolute clearness, that,
before the salvation comes, all that is glorious, not only in Israel,
but in Judah also, must be given over to destruction, compare Vol. i.
p. 357. In like manner, too, Hosea prophesies not only the destruction
of the kingdom of the ten tribes, but also that Judah shall be carried
away into exile, comp. Vol. i. p. 176. In Isaiah, the foreknowledge
of the entire devastation of the city and land, and the carrying away
into captivity of its inhabitants--a foreknowledge which stands in
close connection with the energy of the knowledge of sin with the
Prophets--meets us from the very beginning of his ministry, and also in
those prophecies, the genuineness of which no one ventures to assail,
as, _e.g._, in chap. i.-vi. After the severity of God had been
manifested before the bodily eyes of the Prophet in the carrying away
of the ten tribes, it could not, even from human considerations, be
doubtful to him, what was the fate in store for Judah.

The knowledge, that the impending carrying away of Judah would take
place by the Chaldeans, and that Babylon would be the place of their
banishment, was not destitute of a certain natural foundation. In the
germ, the Chaldean power actually existed even at that time. Decidedly
erroneous is the view of _Hitzig_, that a Chaldean power in Babylon
could be spoken of only since the time of Nabopolassar. This power, on
the contrary, was very old; compare the proofs in _Delitzsch's_
Commentary on Habakkuk, S. 21. The Assyrian power, although, when
outwardly considered, at its height, when more closely examined, began,
even at that time, already to sink. A weakening of the Assyrian power
is intimated also by the circumstance, that Hezekiah ventured to rebel
against the Assyrians, and the embassy of the Chaldean Merodach Baladan
to Hezekiah, implies that, even at that time, many things gave a title
to expect the speedy downfal of the Assyrian [Pg 191] Empire. But the
fact that Isaiah possessed the clear knowledge that, in some future
period, the dominion of the world would pass over to Babylon and the
Chaldeans,--that they would be the executors of the judgment upon
Judah, we have already proved, in our remarks on chaps. xiii., xiv.,
from the prophecies of the first part,--from chap. xxiii. 13, where the
Chaldeans are mentioned as the executors of the judgment upon the
neighbouring people, the Tyrians, and as the destroyers of the Assyrian
dominion,--and from chap. xxxix. The attempt of dispossessing him of
this knowledge is so much the more futile, that his contemporary Micah
undeniably possesses it; comp. Vol. i. p. 464. So also does Habakkuk,
between whose time and that of Isaiah, circumstances had not
essentially changed, and who likewise still prophesied before the
Chaldean monarchy had been established.

While this foreknowledge of the future _elevation_ of Babylon had a
_historical_ foundation, the foreknowledge of its _humiliation and
fate_, following soon after, rested on a _theological_ foundation. With
a heathenish people, elevation is always followed by haughtiness, with
all its consequences; and, according to the eternal laws of the divine
government of the world, haughtiness is a matter-of-fact prophecy of
destruction. Proceeding from this view, the downfal of the Chaldean
monarchy was prophesied by Habakkuk also, at a time when it was still
developing, and was far from having attained to the zenith of its
power. In the same manner, the foreknowledge of the future _deliverance
of Israel_ rises on a theological foundation, and is not at all to be
considered in the same light as if _e.g._, the Prophet had foretold to
Moab its deliverance. That which the Prophet here predicts is only the
individualization of a general truth which meets us at the very
beginnings of the covenant-people. The principle which St. Paul
advances in Rom. xi. 2: "God hath not cast away His people whom He
foreknew," and ver. 29: "For the gifts and calling of God are without
repentance," meets us, clearly and distinctly, as early as in the books
of Moses. In Levit. xxvi. 42-45, the deliverance from the land of
captivity is announced on the ground of the election of Israel, and of
the covenant with the fathers, and as a fulfilment of the promise of
future election, which was given by the fact of Israel's being
delivered from [Pg 192] Egypt. And according to Deut. iv. 30, 31, xxx.
ff., and the close of chap. xxxii., the end of all the catastrophes
which are inflicted upon the covenant-people is always Israel's
conversion and reception into favour; behind the judgment, mercy is
always concealed. In the prayer of Solomon, the carrying away goes hand
in hand with the reception into favour. But it will be altogether
fruitless to deny to Isaiah the knowledge of the future deliverance of
Israel from Babylon, since his contemporary Micah, in chap. iv. 10,
briefly and distinctly expresses the same: "And thou comest to Babylon;
there shalt thou be delivered; there shall the Lord redeem thee from
the hand of thine enemies."

The only point in the prophetic foreknowledge of the second part which
really seems to want, not only a historical or ideal foundation, but
also altogether corresponding analogies, is the mention of the name of
Koresh. But this difficulty disappears if, in strict opposition to the
current notion, it is assumed that Cyrus was induced, by our book only,
to appropriate to himself that name. Recent investigation has proved
that this name is originally not a proper name, but an honorary
title,--that the Greek writers rightly explain it by _Sun_,--that the
name of the sun was, in the East generally, and especially with the
Persians, a common honorary title of rulers; comp. _Buernouf_ and others
in _Haevernick's Einleitung_, ii. 2, S. 165. This honorary title of the
Persian kings, Isaiah might very easily learn in a natural way. And the
fact that this _Nomen dignitatis_ became, among several others,
peculiar to Cyrus (the mention of the name of Koresh by Isaiah does not
originally go beyond the announcement of the conqueror from the East)
is explained by the circumstance that Cyrus assumed this name in honour
of our book, and as an acknowledgment of the mission assigned to him by
it, although the Prophet had not used this name in any other manner
than Balaam had that of Agag, perhaps with an allusion to its
signification; compare the phrases "from the East," "from the rising of
the sun," in chap. xli. 2, 25. And it is historically settled and
certain, that Cyrus had originally another name, viz., _Agradates_, and
that he assumed this name only at the time of his ascending the throne,
which falls into the time when the prophecies of our book could already
be known to him (comp. the [Pg 193] proofs in _Haevernick's Einleit._)
And as it is farther certain that the prophecies of our book made a
deep impression upon him, and, in important points, exercised an
influence upon his actions (this appears not only from the express
statement of _Josephus_, [Arch. xi. c. 1. Sec. 1, 2,] but still more from
an authentic document, the Edict of Cyrus, in Ezra i. 1 ff., which so
plainly implies the fact reported by _Josephus_, that _Jahn_ rightly
called _Josephus'_ statement a commentary on this Edict, which refers,
_partly_ with literal accuracy, to a series of passages from the second
part of Isaiah, compare the particulars in _Kleinert_, _ueber die
Echtheit des Jesaias_, S. 142);--as the condition of the Persian
religion likewise confirms this result gained from the Edict of Cyrus
(_Stuhr_, _die Religionssysteme des alten Orients_, S. 373 ff., proves
that in the time of Cyrus, and by him, an Israelitish element had been
introduced into it);--there will certainly not be any reason to
consider our supposition to be improbable, or the result of
embarrassment.

But to this circumstance we must still direct attention, that those
prophetic announcements of the second part which have reference to that
which, even at the time of "the great unknown," still belonged to the
future, are far more distinct, and can far less be accounted for from
natural causes, than those from which rationalistic criticism has drawn
inferences as regards the spuriousness of the second part. The personal
Messianic prophecies of the second part are much more characteristic
than those concerning Cyrus. He who cannot, by the help of history,
supplement and illustrate the prophecy, receives only an incomplete and
defective image of the latter. And, indeed, a sufficiently long time
elapsed before even Exegesis recognised with certainty and unanimity
that it was Cyrus who was meant. Doubts and differences of opinion on
this point meet us even down to last century. The Medes and Persians
are not at all mentioned as the conquerors of Babylon, and all which
refers to the person of Cyrus has an altogether ideal character; while
the Messiah is, especially in chap. liii., so distinctly drawn, that
scarcely any essential feature in His image is omitted. And it is
altogether a matter of course that here, in the antitypical
deliverance, a much greater clearness and distinctness should prevail;
for it stands [Pg 194] in a far closer relation to the idea, so that
form and substance do far less disagree.

It would be inappropriate were we here to take up and refute all
the arguments against the genuineness of the second part, which
rationalistic criticism has brought together. Besides those which we
have already refuted, we shall bring into view only this argument,
which, at first sight indeed, may dazzle and startle even the
well-disposed, viz., the difference between the first and second parts,
as regards language and mode of representation. The chief error of
those who have adduced this argument is, that they judge altogether
without reference to person,--a matter, however, quite legitimate in
this case,--that they simply apply the same rule to the productions of
Isaiah which, in the productions of less richly endowed persons, has
indeed a _certain_ right, _e.g._, on the prophetical territory of
Jeremiah, who, notwithstanding the difference of subject, yet does not
understand so to change his voice, that it should not soon be
recognized by the skilled More than of all the prophets that holds true
of Isaiah, which _Fichte_, in a letter to a _Koenigsberg_ friend, writes
of himself (in his _Life_, by his son, i. S. 196): "I have properly no
style at all, for I have them all." "Just as the subject demands," says
_Ewald_, without assigning to the circumstance any weight in judging of
the second part, "just as the subject demands, every kind of speech,
and every change of style are easily at his command; and it is just
this in which here his greatness, as, in general, one of his most
prominent perfections, consists." The chief peculiarities of style in
the second part stand in close relation to the subject, and the
disposition of mind thereby called forth. The Prophet, as a rule, does
not address the mass of the people, but the election ([Greek: ekloge]);
nor the sinful congregation of the Lord in the present time, but that
of the future, purified by the judgments of the Lord, the seed and germ
of which were the election of the Present. It is to the congregation of
brethren that he addresses _Comfort_. The beginning: "Comfort ye,
Comfort ye, Zion," contains the keynote and principal subject. It is
from this that the gentle, tender, soft character of the style is to be
accounted for, as well as the frequent repetitions;--the comforting
love follows, step by step, the grief which is indefatigable in its
repetitions. [Pg 195] From this circumstance is to be explained the
habit of adding several epithets to the name of God; these are as many
shields which are held up against despair, as many bulwarks against the
things in sight, by which every thought of redemption was cut off Where
God is the sole help, every thing must be tried to make the
Congregation feel what they have in Him. A series of single phrases
which several times recur _verbatim_, _e.g._, "I am the Lord, and none
else, I do not give mine honour to any other, I am the first and the
last," are easily accounted for by the Prophet's endeavour and anxiety
to impress upon the desponding minds truths, which they were only too
apt to forget. If other linguistic peculiarities occur, which cannot be
explained from the subject, it must be considered that the second part
is not by any means a collection of single prophecies, but a closely
connected whole, which, as such, must necessarily have its own peculiar
_usus loquendi_, a number of constantly recurring characteristic
peculiarities. The character of unity must necessarily be expressed in
language and style also. The fact, however, that, notwithstanding the
difference of style betwixt the first and second parts, the second part
has a great number of characteristic peculiarities of language and
style in common with the first part (a fact which cannot be otherwise,
if Isaiah was the author of both), was first very thoroughly
demonstrated by _Kleinert_, while _Kueper_ and _Caspari_ have been the
first conclusively to prove, that the second part was known and made
use of by those prophets who prophesied between the time of Isaiah and
that of "the great unknown."

The close connection of the second part with the first is, among other
things, proved also by the circumstance that both are equally strongly
pervaded with the Messianic announcement. Chap. i.-xii. especially
have, in this respect, a remarkable parallel in the second book of the
second part. The fact, moreover, that the single Messianic prophecies
of the second part agree, in the finest and most concealed features,
with those of the first part, will be shown in the exposition.



[Footnote 1: Chap. xxxvii. 38, (comp. 2 Kings xix. 37), describing
apparently the murder of Sennacherib as belonging to the past, does not
decide any thing as to the composition of this chapter by Isaiah,
"inasmuch as the year which is assigned for Sennacherib's death, B.C.
696, is not historically ascertained and certain. Nor can the
supposition, that Isaiah lived until the time of Manasseh, and himself
arranged and edited the collection of his prophecies on the eve of his
life, be liable to any well-founded doubts" (_Keil_, _Einleitung_, S.
271). The inscription in chap. i. 1, only indicates that the collection
does not contain any prophecies which go beyond the time of Hezekiah.]

[Footnote 2: To a certain degree analogous are those other passages of
the Old Testament, in which the Past presents itself in the form of the
Present, as the deliverance from Egypt in Ps. lxvi. 6; lxxxi. 6. Faith,
at the same time, makes all the old things new, fresh, and lively, and
anticipates the Future.]

[Pg 196]




                            CHAP. XLII. 1-9.


The 40th chapter has an introductory character. It comforts the people
of the Lord by pointing, in general, to a Future rich in salvation. In
chap. xli. the Prophet describes the appearance of the conqueror from
the East for the destruction of Babylon,--an event from which he
derives, as from a rich source, ample consolations for his poor
wretched people, while, at the same time, he represents idolatry as
being thereby put to shame. It is on purpose that, immediately after
the first announcement of this conqueror from the East, his antitype
is, in chap. xlii. 1-9, contrasted with him. In the preceding chapter,
the Prophet had shown how, by the influence of the king from the East,
the Lord would put idolatry to shame, and work out deliverance for His
Church. In the section now before us, he describes how, by the mission
of His servant, the Lord would effect, definitely and absolutely, that
which the former had done only in a preliminary, limited, and imperfect
manner. In the subsequent section, the Prophet then first farther
carries out the image of the conqueror from the East; and from chap.
xlix. he turns to a more minute representation of the image of the true
Saviour. In chaps. xlii. 10, to xliii. 7, the discourse turns, from a
general description of God's instruments of salvation, to a general
description of the salvation in its whole extent; just as it is the
manner of the second part ever again to return from the particular to
the general.

Here, where the Servant of God is first to be introduced, He is at
first spoken _of_; it is in ver. 5 that the Lord first speaks _to_ His
servant. In chap. xlix., on the contrary, the Servant of God, being
already known from chap. xlii., is, without farther remark, introduced
as speaking.

In the whole section, the Lord is speaking. It falls into three
divisions--First, the Lord speaks _of_ His servant, vers. 1-4; then He
speaks to His servant, ver. 5-7; finally. He addresses some closing
words to the Church, ver. 8, 9. The representation, in harmony with the
nature of the prophetic vision, bears a dramatic character.

In ver. 1-4, the Lord, as it were, points to His servant, introduces
Him to His Church, and commends Him to the [Pg 197] world: "Behold my
Servant," &c. He, the beloved and elect One, upheld by God, and endowed
with the fulness of the Spirit of God, shall establish righteousness
upon the whole earth, and bring into submission to himself the whole
Gentile world, by showing himself meek and lowly in heart, an helper of
the poor and afflicted, and combining with it never-failing power. The
aim: He shall bring forth right to the Gentiles. is at once expressed
at the close of ver. 1. In ver. 2-4, the means by which He attains this
aim are then stated. The bringing forth, or the establishing of right,
recurs again in ver. 3 and 4, in order to point out this relation of
ver. 2-4 to ver. 1.

In ver. 6 and 7, after having pointed to His Omnipotence as affording a
guarantee for the fulfilment of a prophecy so great that it might
appear almost incredible, the Lord turns to His Servant and addresses
Him. He announces to Him that it should be His glorious destination,
partly to bring, in His person, the covenant with Israel to its full
truth, partly to be the light for the Gentile world,--to be, in
general, the Saviour of the whole human race.

In the closing verses, 8, 9, the Lord addresses the Church, and directs
its attention to the object which the announcement of the mission of
His Servant, declared in the preceding context, serves: God, because He
is God, is anxious for the promotion of His glory. In order, therefore,
that it may be known that He alone is God, He grants to His people
disclosures as regards the distant Future, as yet fully wrapped up in
obscurity.

There is no doubt, and it is now generally admitted, that the Servant
of the Lord, here described, is the same as He who is brought before us
in chap. xlix. 4; liii., lxi. It is, hence, not sufficient to point out
an individual to whom, apparently, the attributes contained in this
prophecy belong; but we must add and combine all the signs and
attributes which are contained in the parallel passages.

The Chaldean Paraphrast who, in so many instances, has faithfully
preserved the exegetical tradition, understands the Messiah by the
Servant of God; and so, from among the later Jewish expositors, do
_Dav. Kimchi_ and _Abarbanel_, the latter of whom says of the
non-Messianic interpretation, [Hebrew: wkl alh] [Pg 198] [Hebrew:
hHkmiM hkv bsnvriM] "that all these expositors were struck with
blindness." That this exposition was the current one among the Jews at
the time of Christ, appears from Luke ii. 32, where Simeon designates
the Saviour as the light to be revealed to the Gentiles [Greek: phos
eis apokalupsin ethnon], with a reference to Is xlii. 6; xlix. 6. It is
especially the latter passage which Simeon has in view, as also St.
Paul in Acts xiii. 46, 47, as appears from the words immediately
preceding [Greek: hoti eidon hoi ophthalmoi mou to soterion sou ho
hetoimasas kata prosopon panton ton laon], which evidently refer to
chap. xlix. But chap. xlix. is, as regards the point which here comes
into consideration, a mere repetition and confirmation of chap. xlii.

By the New Testament, this exposition has been introduced and
established in the Church of Christ. The words which, at the baptism of
Christ, resounded from heaven: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho
agapetos, en ho eudokesa], Matt. iii. 17 (comp. Mark i. 11) evidently
refer to ver. 1 of the chapter before us, and point out that He who had
now appeared was none other than He who had, centuries ago, been
predicted by the prophets. And so do likewise the words which,
according to Matt. xvii. 5 (compare Mark ix. 7; Luke ix. 35; 2 Pet. i.
17), at the transfiguration of Christ, towards the close of His
ministry, resounded from heaven in order to strengthen the Apostles:
[Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapetos, en ho eudokesa. autou
akouete.] These voices at the beginning and the close of Christ's
ministry have not been sufficiently attended to by those who have
raised doubts against the Messianic interpretation; for a doubt in this
must necessarily shake also the belief in the reality of those voices.
In both of the passages, the place of the Servant of God in chap. xlii.
1 (which passage is indeed not so much quoted, as only, in a free
treatment, referred to) is taken by the Son of God, from Ps. ii. 7,
just as, at the transfiguration, the words [Greek: autou akouete] are
at once added from Deut. xviii. 15. The name of the Servant of God
was not high enough fur the sublime moment; the _Son_ formed, in the
second passage, the contrast to the _mere_ servants of God, Moses and
Elijah.--In Matt. xii. 17-21, ver. 1-3 are quoted, and referred to
Christ. The Messianic explanation of chap. xlii., xlix. lies at the
foundation of all the other passages also, where Christ is spoken of as
the [Greek: pais Theou]. In Acts iii. 13: [Greek: edoxase ton paida]
[Pg 199] [Greek: autou Iesoun], we shall be obliged to follow _Bengel_
in explaining it by: _ministrum suum_, partly on account of Matt. xii.
18, and because the LXX. often render [Hebrew: ebd] by [Greek: pais];
partly on account of the obvious reference to the Old Testament
passages which treat of the Servant of God, and on account of the
special allusion to chap. xlix. 3 in the [Greek: edoxase] (LXX. [Greek:
doulos mou ei su [Israel] kai en soi eudoxasthesomai]). And so likewise
in Acts iii. 26; iv. 27: [Greek: epi ton hagion paida sou Iesoun, hon
echrisas], where the last words refer to chap. lxi. 1; farther, in Acts
iv. 30. In all these passages it is not the more obvious [Greek:
doulos], but [Greek: pais] which is put, in order to remove the low
notions which, in Greek, attach to the word [Greek: doulos].

Taking her stand partly on these authorities, partly on the natural
sense of the passage, the Christian Church has all along referred the
passage to Christ; and even expositors such as _Clericus_, who,
everywhere else, whensoever it is possible, seek to set aside the
Messianic interpretation, are here found among its most decided
defenders. In our century, with the awakening faith, this explanation
has again obtained general dominion; and wherever expositors of
evangelical disposition do not yet profess it, this is to be accounted
for from the still continuing influence of rationalistic tradition.

We are led to the Messianic interpretation by the circumstance that the
servant of God appears here as the antitype of Cyrus. A real person can
be contrasted with a real person only, but not with a personification,
as is assumed by the other explanations. We are compelled to explain it
of Christ by this circumstance also, that it is in Him only that the
signs of the Servant of God are to be found,--that in Him only the
covenant of God with Israel has become a truth,--that He only is the
light of the Gentiles,--that He only, without external force, by His
gentleness, meekness, and love, has founded a Kingdom, the boundaries
of which are conterminous with those of the earth. The connection,
also, with the other Messianic announcements, especially those of the
first part, compels us to refer it to Christ.

The reasons against the Messianic interpretation are of little weight.
The assertion that nowhere in the New Testament does Jesus appear as
the Servant of Jehovah (_Hendewerk_), is at once overthrown by Matt.
xii. 18, as well as by the other [Pg 200] passages already quoted, in
which Christ appears as [Greek: pais Theou]. Phil. ii. 7, [Greek:
morphen doulou labon] comes as near the [Hebrew: ebd ihvh], as it was
possible, considering the low notion attached to the Greek [Greek:
doulos]. The passages which treat of the obedience of Christ, such as
Rom, v. 19; Phil. ii. 8; Heb. v. 8; John xvii. 4: [Greek: ton ergon
eteleiosa, ho dedokas moi hina poieso], give only a paraphrase of the
notion of the Servant of the Lord. With perfect soundness _Dr Nitzsch_
has remarked, that it was required by the typical connection of the two
Testaments, that Christ should somehow, according to His [Greek:
hupakoe], [Greek: hupotage], be represented as the perfect
manifestation of the [Hebrew: ebd]--The assertion: "The Messiah is
excluded by the circumstance that the subject is not only to be a
teacher of the Gentiles, who is endowed with the Spirit of God, but is
also to announce deliverance to Israel" (_Gesenius_), rests only on an
erroneous, falsely literal interpretation of ver. 7, which is not a
whit better than if, in ver. 3, we were to think of a natural bruised
reed, a natural wick dimly burning.--The objection that this Servant of
the Lord is not foretold as a future person, but is spoken of as one
present, forgets that we are here on the territory of prophetic vision,
that the prophets had not in vain the name of _seers_, and puts the
_real_, in place of the _ideal_ Present,--a mistake which is here the
less pardonable that the Prophet pre-eminently uses the Future, and, in
this way, himself explains the ideal character of the inserted
Preterites.--In order to refute the assertion, that the doctrine of the
Messiah is foreign to the second part of Isaiah, that (as _Ewald_ held)
in it the former Messianic hopes are connected with the person of a
heathen king, viz., Cyrus (how very little have they who advance such
opinions any idea of the nature of Holy Writ!), it is only necessary to
refer to chap. lv. 3, 4, where the second David, the Messiah, appears,
at the same time, as Teacher, and as the Prince and Lawgiver of the
nations, who is to extend the Kingdom of God far over all heathen
nations. That which, in that passage, is declared of the Messiah, and
that which, in those passages which treat of the Servant of God, is
declared of Him, exclude one another, as soon as, by the Servant of
God, any other subject than the Messiah is understood.

Even this circumstance must raise an unfavourable prejudice against the
non-Messianic interpretation, that its defenders [Pg 201] are at one in
the negative only, but differ in the positive determination of the
subject, and that, hitherto, no one view has succeeded in overthrowing
the other; and farther, that ever anon new subtleties are advanced, by
means of which it is attempted to patch up and conceal the
inadmissibilities of every individual exposition.

Passing over those expositions which have now become obsolete,--such as
of Cyrus, the Prophet Isaiah himself--we shall give attention to those
expositions only which even now have their representatives, and which
have some foundation in the matter itself.

The LXX. already understood Israel by the Servant of the Lord. They
translate in ver. 1: [Greek: Iakob, ho pais mou, antilepsomai autou,
Israel, ho eklektos mou, prosedexato auton he psuche mou.] Among the
Jewish interpreters, _Jarchi_ follows this explanation, but with this
modification, that, by the Servant of the Lord, he understands the
collective body of the righteous in Israel. In modern times, this view
is defended by _Hitzig_. It appeals especially to the circumstance
that, in a series of other passages of the second part, Israel, too, is
designated by the Servant of God, viz. in chap. xli. 8: "And thou
Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed of Abraham my
friend," ver. 9: "Thou whom I have taken from the ends of the earth,
and called thee from its sides, and said unto thee: Thou art my
servant, I have chosen thee, and not cast thee away," chap. xlii. 19,
xliii. 10, xliv. 1, 2: "And now hear, O Jacob my servant, and Israel
whom I have chosen. Thus saith the Lord that made thee, formed thee
from the womb and helpeth thee: Fear not, O Jacob, my servant, and thou
Jeshurun, whom I have chosen;" chap. xliv. 21, xlv. 4, xlviii. 20; "Say
ye, the Lord hath redeemed His servant Jacob." In the face of this
fact, we shall not be permitted to refer to "the general signification
of the expression, and its manifold use." For, generally, it is of very
rare occurrence that Israel is personified as the Son of God (in Ps.
cv. 6, it is not Israel, as _Koester_ supposes, but Abraham who is
called Servant of God; Jer. xxx. 10, xlvi. 27; Ezek. xxxvii. 25 are, in
all probability, dependent upon the second part of Isaiah, by which
this designation first obtained a footing), and never occurs in such
accumulation as here. For this very reason, we cannot well think [Pg
202] of an accident; and if there was an intention, we can seek it only
in the circumstance that there exists a close reference to those
prophecies which, _ex professo_, have to do with the Servant of God. To
this we are led by another circumstance, also. While those passages in
which Israel or Jacob is spoken of as the servant of God, occur in
great numbers in the first book of the second part of Isaiah, they
_disappear_ altogether in the second book, which is the proper seat of
the detail prophecies of the Servant of God in question, who, in the
first book was, by way of anticipation only, mentioned in chap. xlii.
After chap. xlviii. 20, where the words: "The Lord hath redeemed His
servant Jacob," occur with evident intention, once more at the close of
the first book, Jacob, the servant of God, is, in general, no more
spoken of, but the Plural is used only of the Israelites as the
servants of God in chap. lxiii. 17: "For thy servants'sake, the tribes
of thine inheritance;" lxv. 8, 9-13, lxvi. 14,--passages which make it
only the more evident that the Prophet purposely avoids bringing
forward Jacob as the ideal person of the Servant of the Lord.
_Finally_--The idea of chance is entirely excluded by chap. xlix. 3,
where the Messiah is called Israel.

From these facts, however, we are not entitled to infer that, in the
prophetic announcement, Israel is simply spoken of as the servant of
God; but on the contrary the context must be viewed in a different and
_nicer_ way. This is evident from the circumstance that, while in the
passages chaps. xli. 7, xlviii. 20, Israel and Jacob are intentionally
spoken of as the servant of God, or, at least, Israel is so distinctly
pointed out that it cannot be at all misunderstood, such an express
pointing to Israel is (with the sole exception of chap. xlix. 3), as
intentionally, avoided in the prophetic announcement of the Servant of
God. The phrase "My servant Jacob," which, in the former passages is
the rule, never occurs in the latter. This circumstance clearly
indicates that, besides the agreement, there exists a difference. The
facts, however, which point out the agreement, receive ample justice by
the supposition _that the Prophet considers Christ as the concentration
and essence of Israel_, that he expects from Him the realization of the
task which was given to Israel, but had not been fulfilled by them, and
just thereby, also, the realization of the promises given to [Pg 203]
Israel. But, besides other reasons, the fact that the whole description
of the Servant of God stands in direct contradiction to what the
Prophet elsewhere says of Israel, proves that Israel is not meant in
_opposition_ to the Messiah,--the body without the head. It is
especially chap. xlii. 19 which here comes into consideration: "Who is
so blind as my servant, or so blind as my messenger whom I send?"
Israel is here called servant of the Lord, because it had been called
by Him to preserve the true religion on earth. Parallel is the
appellation: "My messenger whom I send." Israel, as the messenger of
God, was to deliver His commands to the Gentiles. The Prophet sharpens
the reproof, in that he always contrasts what the people were, and what
they ought to have been, according to the destination given to them by
the Lord. The servant of the Lord, who, in order to execute His
commissions, must have a sharp eye, is blind; His messenger is deaf and
cannot hear what He says to him. The immense contrast between idea and
reality which is here pointed out, implies, since the idea must
necessarily be realized, that it shall receive another bearer; that in
place of the messenger, who has become blind and deaf, there should
come the true Messenger who first opens the eyes of Israel, and then
those of the Gentiles,--that the destination of Israel, which the
members are unfit to realize, should be realized by the head. We are
not at liberty to say that the servant who had become blind and deaf
shall be converted, shall put off the old man and put on the new man,
and shall then accomplish the great things which, in the prophecies of
the Servant of God, are assigned to him. For the conversion,--on which
everything depends, and apart from which the announcement of the
Prophet would be an empty fancy--is, in all these prophecies, not
mentioned by a single word. On the contrary, the Servant of God is
everywhere, from His very origin, brought before us as the absolutely
just. No more glaring contrast can really be imagined than that which
exists between that which the Prophet says of the ordinary Israel
(whose outward state, as it is described in chap. xlii. 22: "This is a
people robbed and spoiled, they are all of them snared in holes, and
hid in prison-houses," is only a faithful image of the internal
condition), and the Son of God in whom His soul delighteth, who in
exuberant love seeks [Pg 204] that which is lost, whose overflowing
righteousness justifies many, and who, as a substitute, can suffer for
others. It is in Christ only, that Israel attains to its destination,
both in a moral point of view, and as regards the Divine preservation
and glorification. To this it may still be added, that neither here,
nor in the parallel passages is [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] ever connected with
a Plural, but always with the Singular only; while elsewhere, in the
case of collective nouns and ideal persons, the real plurality not
uncommonly shines forth from behind the unity; and in those passages,
especially, where Israel appears personified as a unity, the use of the
Singular is interchanged with that of the Plural. Comp., _e.g._, chap.
xli. 8: "And thou Israel, my servant, Jacob whom I have chosen, seed
(_posterity_) of Abraham, my friend," chap. xliii. 10: "_Ye are my
witnesses._ saith the Lord, and my servant whom I have chosen." But a
circumstance, which alone would be sufficient for the proof, is the
fact, that in chap. xli. 6, (comp. chap. xlix. 5, 6) the Servant of the
Lord is plainly distinguished from the people. How can the Lord say of
the people, that He will give it for a covenant of the people, that in
it He will cause the covenant with the people to attain to its truth?
The fact, that this passage opposes an insurmountable barrier to the
explanation which makes the people the subject, sufficiently appears
from the circumstance, that the expositors saw themselves obliged to
set aside its natural sense by a forced, unphilological explanation.
_Finally_,--In understanding the people by the Servant of God, the
prophecies of the Servant of God are brought into irreconcileable
contradiction with all other prophecies, with the first part of Isaiah,
and even with the second part, inasmuch as things would then be
prophesied of the people which, everywhere else, are constantly
assigned to the Messiah. This is quite openly expressed by _Koester_:
"The Servant of Jehovah is the Jewish people; viewed, however, by the
Prophet in such a manner as to combine in itself the attributes of
both, the prophets and the Messiah." Prophetism would have dug its own
grave if its organs had, in a manner so inconsiderate, contradicted
each other as regards the highest hopes of the people. The national
conviction of the inspiration of the prophets, which formed the
foundation of their activity and efficiency, could, in that case, not
have arisen at [Pg 205] all. The same arguments decide partly also
against a modification of this explanation which evidently has
proceeded from embarrassment only,[1] against those who, by the Servant
of God, understand the better portion of Israel,--such as _Maurer_,
_Ewald_, _Oehler_ (_Ueber den Knecht Gottes_, _Tuebinger Zeitschrift_,
1840. The latter differs from the other supporters of this view in
this, that, according to him, the notion of the ideal Israel which, he
thinks, prevails in chap. xlii. and xlix., is, in chap. liii., raised
to the view of an individual--the Messiah), _Knobel_ ("The theocratic
substance of the people, to which especially the prophets and priests
belonged.") By this modification, the explanation which makes the
people the subject, loses its only apparent foundation, inasmuch as it
can no more appeal to those passages in which Israel is spoken of as
the Servant of the Lord; for it is obvious that, in these, not merely
the pious portion of the people is spoken of. At the very outset, in
ver. 19, the whole of the people are undeniably designated by the
Servant of the Lord. It is they only who are blind and deaf in a
spiritual point of view. The whole people, and not a portion of them,
are in the condition of servitude, ver. 22. In ver. 24, Jacob and
Israel are expressly mentioned. The whole people, and not merely the
pious portion, are objects of the Lord's election (chap. xli. 8, xliv.
1, 2); the whole people are to be redeemed from Babylon, chap. xlviii.
20. The hypothesis of the pious portion of the people can as little
account for the unexceptional use of the singular, as the hypothesis of
the whole people; like it, it isolates the prophecies of the Servant of
God, and brings them into contradiction with all the other prophecies,
which assign to Christ the same things that are here assigned to the
Servant of God. But what is especially in opposition to this hypothesis
is ver. 3, where the Servant of God is designated as the Saviour of the
poor and afflicted, which, in the first instance, are no other than the
better portion of the people; as well as other reasons, which we shall
bring out in commenting upon chap. liii. by which section the
hypothesis is altogether overthrown.

According to _De Wette_ (_de morte expiat._ p. 26) and _Gesenius_, [Pg
206] the subject of the prophecy is the collective body of the
prophets. Substantially, _Umbreit_ too (_Der Knecht Gottes_, Hamburg
1840) adheres to this interpretation. He rejects the explanation which
refers it to Christ in the sense of the Christian Church, and on p. 13
he completely assents to _Gesenius_, by remarking that he could not
find in the prophets any supernatural, distinct predictions of future
events. The Prophet, according to him, formed to himself, by his own
authority, an "ideal of a Messiah," the abstraction of what he saw
before his eyes in the people, especially in the better portion of
them, but chiefly in the order of the prophets, and then persuaded
himself that this self-invented image would, at some future period,
come into existence as a real person. "The highest ideal of the
prophetic order, viewed as teaching, is represented in the unity of a
person." "We find the prophets as a collective body in the [Hebrew:
ebd], but chiefly, the prophets who, in future only, on the regained
paternal soil, are, in some person, to reach the highest perfection."

This hypothesis of the collective body of the prophets violently severs
the prophecy before us, and the parallel passages from those passages
of the second part in which Israel is spoken of as the Servant of God.
It is quite impossible to point out anywhere in the Old Testament, and
especially in the second part of Isaiah, an analogous personification
of the order of the prophets as the Servant of God. The reference to
chap. xliv. 26: "That establisheth the word of His servant, and
performeth the counsel of His messengers; that saith of Jerusalem: She
shall be inhabited, and of the cities of Judah: They shall be built,
and I will raise up the walls thereof," is, in this respect, altogether
out of place, inasmuch as the servant of the Lord, in that verse, is
not the collective band of the prophets, but Isaiah himself, just as in
chap. xxiii. The parallelism between the servant of the Lord and His
messengers is not a _synonymous_, but a _synthetic_ one, just as,
afterwards, Jerusalem and the cities of Judah are placed beside one
another. The parallel passages clearly intimate that, by the servant of
the Lord, Isaiah only is to be understood. Throughout, the Prophet
refers exclusively to his own prophecies, as regards the impending
salvation of Israel (the prophecies of others he mentions, everywhere
else, always in reference to the past only); [Pg 207] and it cannot be
imagined that, in this single passage only, he should have designated
himself as one among the many. If we consider those parallel passages,
we must assume that the _messengers_ also are represented chiefly by
our Prophet; that he is their mouth and organ, just as, in Rev. i. 1,
and xxii. 6, the servants of God and the prophets are represented by
John.

_Farther_--It cannot be denied that a certain amount of truth lies at
the foundation of the explanation which makes the prophetic order the
subject. The Messiah appears in our prophecy pre-eminently as the
Prophet, in harmony and connection with Deut. xviii. (comp. Vol. i., p.
107); and the substratum of the description forms chiefly the prophetic
order, while, in the prophecies of the first part, it is chiefly the
regal office which appears, and, in chap. liii., the priestly. But the
mistake (as _Umbreit_ himself partly saw) is, that this explanation
changes the person into a personification, instead of recognizing that
the idea, which hitherto was only imperfectly realised by the prophetic
order, demands a future perfect realisation in an individual, so that
we could not but expect such an one even if there did not exist any
Messianic prophecy at all. Every prophet who, in human weakness,
performed his office, was a guarantee of the future appearance of _the_
Prophet, as surely as God never does by halves what, according to His
nature, and as proved by the existence of the imperfect, He must do.
But the fact that, here, we have not before us a mere personification
of the prophetic order, nor, as little, according to the opinion of
_Umbreit_, a single individual by whom, in future, the idea of the
prophetic order was to be most perfectly realised, is evident from the
circumstance that the Servant of God does not, by any means, represent
himself as being _only_ the Prophet. The contrast between Cyrus and the
Servant of God, which _G. Mueller_ advances: "Evidently, the former is a
conqueror; the latter, a meek teacher," is one-sided; for the Servant
of God appears, at the same time, as a powerful _ruler_, just as
Christ, in chap. lv. 4, is at the same time designated as a _Witness_,
and as Prince and Lawgiver of the nations. To the mere teacher not even
ver. 3 is applicable, if the parallel passages are compared, but far
less ver. 4: "The isles shall wait for _His law_." Nor does a mere
teacher come up to the embodied covenant with Israel in ver. 6, nor to
_the_ [Pg 208] _light_, _i.e._, Salvation and Saviour of the Gentiles.
By mere teaching, salvation cannot be wrought out. Ver. 7 also does not
apply to the mere _teacher_.

The collective body of the prophets, or the ideal prophet, is
altogether out of place in chap. liii.; for there the Servant of God
does not appear as a Prophet, but as a High Priest and Redeemer. This
hypothesis meets with farther difficulties by the mention of Israel in
chap. xlix. 3. _Farther_--It cannot well be conceived how the Prophet
who, according to these expositors, lived about the end of the exile,
could expect such glorious things of the prophetic order, as that
from it even a preliminary and partial realization of his hopes
should proceed. At that time the prophetic order was already dying out;
and a prophetic order among the exiled cannot well be spoken of
_Finally_--That which is here ascribed to the Servant of God--the grand
influence upon the heathen world--is not of such a character, as that
the prophets could be considered as even the precursors and companions
in the work of _the Prophet_. Neither prophecy nor history assigns to
the prophets any share in this work. This hypothesis severe the second
part from its connection with the whole remaining Old Testament,
according to which it is by Christ alone that the reception of the
Gentiles into the Kingdom of God shall be effected. And in this second
part itself, it stands likewise in contradiction to chap. lv. 3, 4.


                           * * * * * * * * * *


Ver. 1. "_Behold my Servant whom I uphold, mine elect, in whom my soul
delighteth; I have put my Spirit upon Him, He shall bring forth
right_[2] _to the Gentiles._"

Every pious man is called, in general, "servant of the Lord," comp. Job
i. 8; Ps. xix. 12, 14; but ordinarily, the designation is, in a special
sense, applied to those whom God makes use of for the execution of His
purposes, to whom He entrusts the administration of His affaire, and
whom He equips for the promotion of His glory. David, who, according to
Acts xiii. 36, had in his generation served the counsel of God, calls
himself [Pg 209] in his prayer in 2 Sam. vii., not fewer than ten
times, the servant of God, (Vol. i, p. 135, 136); and the same
designation he gives to himself in the inscriptions of Ps. xviii. and
xxxvi. The _Prophets_ are called servants of God in 2 Kings xiii. 3;
Jer. xxvi. 5. In the highest and most perfect degree, that designation
belongs to Christ, who, in the most perfect manner, carried out the
decrees of God, and to whom all former servants and instruments of the
Lord in His kingdom, pointed as types. But the designation has not
merely a reference to the subjective element of obedience, but points,
at the same time, to the _dignity_ of him who is thus designated. It is
a high honour to be received by God among the number of His servants,
who enjoy the providence and protection of their mighty and rich Lord.
That this aspect--the dignity--comes here chiefly into consideration,
in the case of Him who is the Servant of God [Greek: kat'ezochen], and
in whom, therefore, this dignity must reach its highest degree, so that
the designation, _My Servant_, borders very closely upon that of _My
Son_, (comp. Matth. iii. 17, xvii. 5);--that this aspect comes here
chiefly into consideration is probable even from the circumstance that,
in those passages of the second part which treat of _Israel_ as the
servant of God, it is just this aspect which is pre-eminently regarded.
Thus it is in chap. xli. 8: "And thou Israel, my servant, Jacob, whom I
have chosen, the seed of Abraham, my friend." To be the servant of God
appears here as an honour, as the privilege which was bestowed upon
Israel in preference to the Gentiles. On ver. 9: "Thou, whom I have
taken from the ends of the earth, and from her borders called thee, and
said unto thee: Thou art my servant, I have chosen thee and not cast
thee away," Luther remarks: "The name, 'my servant,'contains the
highest _consolation_, both when we look to Him who speaks, viz.. He
who has created everything, and also to him who is addressed, viz.,
afflicted and forsaken man." In chap. xliv. 1, 2: "And now hear, O
Jacob, my servant, and Israel whom I have chosen; thus saith the Lord
that made thee, and formed thee from the womb, who will help thee: Fear
not, O Jacob, my servant, and Jeshurun, whom I have chosen," all the
designations of God and Israel serve only for an introduction to the
exhortation: "Fear not," by laying open the necessity which exists for
the promise in [Pg 210] ver. 3, which, without such ca foundation,
would be baseless. The context and the parallelism with "whom I have
chosen" show that the designation, "servant of God" in these verses has
no reference to a duty imposed, but to a privilege, a relation which is
the pledge of divine aid to Israel. Jeshurun stands as a kind of _nomen
proprium_, and is not parallel to [Hebrew: ebdi], but to Jacob. In
chap. xliv. 21: "Remember this, O Jacob, and Israel, for thou art my
servant, I have formed thee for a servant to me, Israel, thou shalt not
be forgotten of me," the [Hebrew: alh] "this" refers to the folly of
idolatry exhibited in the preceding verses. The duty that Israel should
remember this, is founded upon the fact, that he is the servant of the
Lord, called by Him to a glorious dignity, to high prerogatives, of
which he must not rob himself by apostatizing from Him. It is He who
has bestowed upon him this dignity, and He will soon show by deeds,
that He cannot forget him, if only his heart does not forget his God.
In a similar manner, in chap. xlv. 4, the protecting providence and
love of God are looked to. The aspect of the duty and of the service
which Israel has to perform to his Lord, is specially pointed out in a
single passage only, in chap. xlii. 19; all the other passages place
the dignity in the foreground. That, in the designation. Servant of
God, in the passage before us, prominence is also given to the dignity,
is confirmed by the addition of "whom I uphold," which presents itself
as an immediate consequence of the relation of a servant of God, and by
the parallel: "mine elect in whom my soul delighteth."--[Hebrew: tmK]
"to take," "to seize," "to hold," when followed by [Hebrew: b], always
signifies _to lay hold of_, _to hold fast_, _to support_. With the
words: "Behold my servant whom I uphold," corresponds what the Lord
says in John viii. 29: [Greek: ho pempsas me met'emou estin. ouk
apheke me monon ho Pater, hoti ego ta aresta auto poio pantote]; comp.
John iii. 2; Acts x. 38. The Preterite [Hebrew: ntti] is employed,
because the communication of the Spirit is the condition of his
bringing forth right, just as, in ver. 6, the _calling_ is the ground
of the preservation. In the whole of the description of the Servant of
God, the Future prevails throughout; the _Praeteritum propheticum_ is
employed only, where something is to be designated, which, relatively,
is antecedent; compare the words: "And the Spirit of the Lord rests
upon [Pg 211] Him," in chap. xi. 2; lxi. 1; Matt. iii. 16; John iii.
34. The three passages in Isaiah which speak of the communication of
the Spirit to Christ are inseparably connected with one another, and,
on the whole Old Testament territory, there is no passage exactly
parallel to them. The Hiphel of [Hebrew: ica] must not be explained by
"to announce," as some interpreters do; for in this signification it
nowhere occurs; and according to what follows, and the parallel
passages, the Servant of God does not by any means establish right by
the mere announcement, but by His holy disposition. But as little can
we explain [Hebrew: hvcia] by "to lead out," in contrast to the
circumstance that, under the Old Testament, right was limited to a
single nation. For in the parallel passage, chap. li. 4: "Hearken unto
me, my people, and give ear unto me, O my congregation, for law shalt
proceed from me, and I will set my right for the light of the nations,"
[Hebrew: ica] does not mean to go _out_, but to go _forth_, _i.e._, to
proceed. In the same way, in Hab. i. 4: "And not does right go forth
for ever," _i.e._, it never comes forth, is never established, comp.
Vol. i., p. 442, 443. Hence [Hebrew: hvcia] here can mean only "to
bring to light," "to bring forth." [Hebrew: mwpT] is, by several
interpreters, taken in the signification, "religion;" but it is just
ver. 4, by which they support their view, which shows that the ordinary
signification "right," must be retained here. For in that verse,
_right_ stands in parallelism with _law_, by which right is
established; comp. chap. li. 4. Before God's Kingdom was, by the
Servant of God, extended to the Gentile nations, there existed among
them, notwithstanding all the excellence of outward legal arrangements,
a condition without right in the higher sense. Right, in its essence,
has its root in God, as may be seen from the Ten Commandments, which
everywhere go back to God, and in all of which Luther, in his
exposition of the ten commandments, rightly repeats: "We shall fear and
love God." Where, therefore, the living God is not known, there can be
no right. The commandment: "Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,"
_e.g._, has any meaning only where the eye is open for the divine image
which the neighbour bears, and for the redemption of which he is a
fellow-partaker. The commandment: "Honour thy father and thy mother"
will go to the heart only where the divine paternity is known, of which
all earthly paternity is only an image. [Pg 212] In Deut. iv. 5-8,
Israel's happiness is praised, in that they alone, among all the
nations, are in possession of God's laws and commandments. Those
privileges of Israel are, by the Servant of God, to be extended to the
Gentiles who, because they are destitute of right, are, in Deut. xxxii.
21, called a foolish nation. In Ps. cxlvii. 19, 20, it is said: "He
showeth His word unto Jacob, His statutes and laws unto Israel. He has
not dealt so with any nation, and law they do not know." This passage
touches very closely upon that before us; like it, it denies right to
the Gentiles in general. "The Gentiles, being without God in the world,
do not know any right at all. For that which they call so, is only the
shadow of that which really deserves this name, is only a dark mixture
of right and wrong." As regards the first table of the Ten
Commandments, they grope entirely in the dark; and with respect to the
second table, it is only here and there that they see a faint glimpse
of light.--A consequence of the bringing forth of right to the Gentiles
is the ceasing of war, as it is described in chap. ii. 4. When right
has obtained dominion, it cannot tolerate war beside it; where there is
true right, there is also peace. The benefit which, in the first
instance, is conferred upon the Gentiles, is enjoyed by Israel also:
The intention of comforting and encouraging Israel clearly appears in
the parallel passage, chap. li. 4. For the right which obtains dominion
among the Gentiles, is Israel's pride and ornament, so that, along with
their God and His right, they obtain also the dominion over the Gentile
world, by which they were hitherto kept in bondage; and whensoever and
wheresoever the divine right obtains dominion, the violent oppression
must cease, under which the people of God had been groaning up to that
time. The Servant of God, however, who brings forth right to the
Gentiles, forms the contrast to the worldly conqueror, of whom it was
said in chap. xli. 25: "He cometh upon princes as mortar, and, just as
the potter treadeth the clay."--The words: "He shall bring forth
right," purposely return again in ver. 3; and equally intentionally,
the words: "He shall found right on the earth," in ver. 4, refer to
them. "We have thus"--_Stier_ pertinently remarks--"in ver. 1, the sum
and substance, even to its aim. But it is immediately brought more
distinctly to view, what [Pg 213] will be the spirit and character, the
mode of operation, by which this aim is to be brought about."

Ver. 2; "_He shall not cry nor lift up, nor cause His voice to be heard
in the street._"

After [Hebrew: iwa] "he shall lift up," "His voice" must be supplied
from the context. The words must not be understood in such a manner, as
if they stood in opposition to chap. lviii. 1: "Cry with thy throat, do
not refrain, lift up thy voice like the trumpet, and show my people
their transgression, and to the house of Jacob their sins." The
Prophet, in that passage, encourages himself; and he cannot mean to
represent that as objectionable, by the circumstance that, in the case
of the Servant of God, the very ideal of all the servants of God, he
points out and praises the very opposite. And, in like manner, every
interpretation is to be avoided according to which "dumb dogs which
cannot bark" find a pretext in this passage. According to Prov. i. 20:
"Wisdom crieth aloud without, she uttereth her voice in the streets."
Just as the prohibition of swearing in Matt. v. 34 is qualified by the
opposition to Pharisaic levity in cursing and swearing, so here, also,
the antithesis to the loud manner of the worldly conqueror must be kept
in view,--the contrast to his violence which stakes every thing upon
carrying his own will, which cries and rages when it meets with
opposition and resistance, (Matt. renders [Hebrew: iceq] by [Greek:
erisei], "He shall contend"), to the earnestly sought publicity, to the
intention of causing sensation, as it proceeds from vanity or pride.
The [Greek: kraugasei], by which Matthew renders the [Hebrew: iwa], has
nothing in common with the [Greek: ekraxe] which, in John vii. 28, 37,
is said of Christ. With the passionate restlessness, with which the
conqueror from the East seeks to carry through his human plans, and to
place himself in the centre of the world's history, is here contrasted
the inward composure and deportment of the Servant of God, His
equanimity, His freedom from excitement,--all of which are based upon
the clear consciousness of His dignity and mission, upon the conviction
of the power of the truth which is of God, of the power of the Spirit
which opens up the minds and hearts for it, and which has its source in
the declaration: "I put my Spirit upon Him," by which the great wall
of separation between Him and the conqueror from the East is set up. It
is just [Pg 214] because of His not being beat upon carrying through
any thing, because of His great confidence, that the Servant of God
_gains_ everything, and obtains His object of bringing right to the
nations.--Matt., in chap. xii. 15-21, finds the confirmation of the
character here assigned to Christ in two circumstances:--_first_, in
His not entering into a violent dispute with the Pharisees opposing Him
([Greek: hoi de pharisaioi sumboulion elabon kat'autou exelthontes,
hopos auton apolesosin]), in His not exciting against them the masses
who were devoted to Him, but in withdrawing from them ([Greek: ho de
Iesous gnous anechoresen ekeithen], ver. 15), being convinced that the
cause was not His but God's, and that there was no reason for getting
angry with those who were contending against God; just as David said of
Shimei: "Let him curse, because the Lord has said unto him, Curse
David."--_Secondly_, in the circumstance that instead of availing
himself of the excitement of the aroused masses, He charged them that
they should not make known His miraculous deeds ([Greek: kai epetimesen
autois hina me phaneron auton poiesosin], ver. 16), being convinced
that He did not need to seek to draw attention to himself, but that, by
the secret and hidden power of God, His work would be accomplished.

Ver. 3. "_The bent reed shall He not break, and the dimly burning wick
shall He not quench; in truth shall He bring forth right._"

Here, too, the antithesis to the worldly conqueror who, without mercy,
"Cometh upon princes as mortar, and as a potter treadeth the clay"
(chap. xli. 25), whose mind is bent only upon destroying and cutting
off nations not a few (chap. x. 7), who does not give rest until he has
fully cast down to the ground the broken power. The Servant of God, far
from breaking the bent reed, shall, on the contrary--this is the
positive opposed to the negative--care for, and assist the wretched
with tender love. Just thereby does He accomplish the object of His
efforts. The confirmation of the character here assigned to Christ is,
by Matthew, found in His healing the sick ([Greek: kai etherapeusen
autous pantas], ver. 15), as prefiguring all that which He, who has
declared the object of His coming to be to seek all that which was
lost, did and accomplished, in general, for the misery of the human
race. There cannot be any doubt that the bent reed and the dimly
burning wick are figurative designations [Pg 215] of those who, beaten
down by sufferings, feel themselves to be poor and miserable. These the
weary and heavy laden, the Servant of God will not drive to despair by
severity, but comfort and refresh by tender love. His conduct towards
them is that of a Saviour. As a bent reed, [Hebrew: qnh rcvC], Pharaoh
appears on account of his broken power, in chap. xxxvi. 6, and in chap.
lviii. 6, the [Hebrew: rcvciM] are the oppressed. The fact, that the
_wick_ dimly burning and near to being extinguished is an image of
exhausted strength, is shown by chap. xliii. 17, where, in reference to
the Egyptians carried away by the judgment, it is said: "They are
extinct, they are quenched like a wick." In the parallel passages which
treat of the Servant of God, the _weary_ in chap. l. 4, and the
_broken-hearted_ in chap. lxi. 1, correspond to it. Elsewhere, too, the
wretched appear as objects of the loving providence of the Saviour.
Thus, in chap. xi. 4: "And He judges in righteousness the low;" in Ps.
lxxii. 4: "He shall judge the poor of the people; He shall save the
children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressor;" and in
vers. 12-14: "For He delivereth the needy when he crieth, and the
miserable, and him that hath no deliverer. From oppression and violence
He delivereth their soul, and precious is their blood in His sight."
Just as, in the passage before us, the bringing forth of right appears
as a consequence of the loving providence for the bent reed, and the
dimly burning wick, so in that Psalm, the great fact: "And all the
kings worship Him, and all the nations serve Him," is traced back to
the tender love with which He cares for and helps the poor and needy.
In the Sermon on the Mount, the beatitude of the [Greek: ptochoi],
Matt. v. 3, of the [Greek: penthountes], ver. 4, and in Matt. xi. 28,
the invitation of the [Greek: kopiontes kai pephortismenoi], exactly
correspond. The wicked and ungodly, upon whom the judgments of God have
been inflicted, are not included, because they are not wretched in the
full sense; for they harden themselves against the suffering, or seek
to divert themselves in it; they do not take it fully to heart. The
[Greek: to pneumati], "in their consciousness," which in Matthew is
added to the simple [Greek: ptochoi], which alone we find in Luke, must
be understood as a matter of course. He only is poor in the full sense,
who feels and takes to heart his poverty. According to an
interpretation widely spread, repenting sinners are designated [Pg 216]
by the bent reed, and dimly burning wick. Thus Luther writes: "That
means that the wounded conscience, those who are terrified at the sight
of their sins, the weak in life and faith are not cast away by Him, are
not oppressed and condemned, but that He cares for them, tends and
nurses them, makes them whole and embraces them with love." But
repenting sinners do not here come into consideration _per se_, but
only as one species of the wretched, inasmuch as, according to Luther's
expression, truly to feel sin is a torment beyond all torments.--The
last words: "In truth shall He bring forth right" again take up the
close of ver. 1, after the means have been stated, in the intervening
words, by which He is to bring about the result. The [Hebrew: lamt]
must not be translated: "For truth" (LXX: [Greek: eis aletheian]); for
there is a thorough difference between [Hebrew: l] and [Hebrew: al];
the former does not, like the latter, designate the motion towards some
object, but is rather, here also, a preposition signifying "belonging
to;" hence [Hebrew: lamt] means "belonging to truth," "in a true
manner," "in truth." By every other mode of dealing, right would be
established _in appearance_ and _outwardly_ only. Matthew renders it:
[Greek: heos an ekbale eis nikos ten krisin], "until He has led right
to victory." By the addition of [Greek: heos] he intimates, that the
last words state the result which is brought about by the conduct of
the Servant of God described in the preceding words. [Greek: Eis
nikos] is a free translation of [Hebrew: lamt]; [Greek: krisis] is
"right," as in chap. xxiii. 23.--How objectionable and untenable all
the non-Messianic explanations are, appears very clearly in this verse.
If Israel were the Servant of God, then the _Gentile world_ must be
represented by the bent reed and dimly burning wick. But in that case,
we must have recourse to such arbitrary interpretations as, _e.g._,
that given by _Koester_: "The weak faith and imperfect knowledge of the
Gentiles." No weak faith, no imperfect knowledge, however, is spoken
of; but the Servant of God appears as a Saviour of the poor and
afflicted, of those broken by sufferings. Those who, by the Servant of
God, understand the better portion of the people, or the prophetic
order, speak of "the meek spirit of the mode of teaching, which does
not by any means altogether crush the sinner already brought low, but,
in a gentle, affectionate manner, raises him up," (_Umbreit_); or say
with _Knobel_: "These poor and afflicted He does not [Pg 217] humble
still more by hard, depressing _words_, but _speaks_ to them in a
comforting and encouraging way, raising them up and strengthening
them." But in this explanation everything is, without reason, drawn
into the territory of speech, while Matthew rightly sees, in the
healing of the sick by Christ, a confirmation by deeds of the prophecy
before us. In chap. lxi., also, the Servant of God does not only bring
glad tidings, but _creates_, at the same time, the blessings announced.
According to chap. lxi. 3, He gives to them that mourn in Zion beauty
for ashes, joy for mourning, garment of praise for a weak ([Hebrew:
khh]) spirit. Verse 6 of the chapter before us most clearly indicates
how little we are allowed to limit ourselves to mere speaking; for,
according to that verse, the Servant of God is himself the covenant of
the people, and the light of the Gentiles, and according to ver. 7, He
opens the eyes of the blind, &c.

Ver. 4. "_He shall not fail nor run away until He shall have founded
right in the earth, and for His law the isles shall wait._"

On: "He shall not fail," properly, "He shall not become dim," comp.
Deut. xxxiv. 7, where it is said of Moses, the servant of God: "His eye
had not become dim, nor had his strength fled." The [Hebrew: la irvC]
"He shall not run away" (properly, "He shall not _run_") is qualified
and fixed by the parallelism with [Hebrew: la ikhh] "He shall not
fail." [Hebrew: rvC] in other passages also, several times receives, by
the context, the qualified signification "to run away," "to take to
flight," "to flee;" comp. Judges viii. 21; Jer. xlix. 19. The words:
"He shall not fail nor run away" imply that, in the carrying out of His
vocation, the Servant of God shall meet with powerful _obstacles_, with
obstinate _enemies_, and shall have to endure severe sufferings. That
which is here merely hinted at, is carried out and detailed in chap.
xlix., l., liii. How near He was to failing and running away (David,
too, was obliged to say: "Oh! that I had wings like a dove, then would
I fly away and be at rest") is seen from His utterance in Matt. xvii.
17: [Greek: o genea apistos kai diestrammene, heos pote esomi meth'
humon; heos pote anexomai humon.]--According to the current opinion,
[Hebrew: irvC] is here assumed to be the Future of [Hebrew: rcC], for
[Hebrew: irC], and that in the appropriate signification: "He shall not
be broken." (Thus it was probably [Pg 218] viewed by the Chaldean
Paraphrast who renders [Hebrew: la ilai] _non laborabit_; by the LXX.,
who translate [Greek: ou thrauthsesetai], while _Aquila_ and
_Symmachus_, according to the account of _Jerome_, render, _non
curret_, thus following the derivation from [Hebrew: rvC]). As [Hebrew:
ikhh] points back to [Hebrew: khh] in the preceding verse, so, in that
case [Hebrew: irvC] would point back to [Hebrew: rcvC] "He shall not
break that which is bent, nor quench that which is dimly burning; but
neither shall He himself be broken or quenched." But this explanation
is opposed by the circumstance, that we must make up our minds to admit
a double anomaly. The territories of the two verbs [Hebrew: rcC] and
[Hebrew: rvC] are everywhere else kept distinct, and the former
everywhere else means "to break," and not "to be broken." In the only
passage, Eccl. xii. 6, brought forward in support of this irregularity,
[Hebrew: rvC] "to run," "to flee away," being in parallelism with
[Hebrew: nrHq] "to be removed," is quite appropriate; just as in the
second clause of that verse [Hebrew: rvC] "to be crushed," is in
parallelism with [Hebrew: nwbr] "to be broken."--[Hebrew: aiiM] are, in
the _usus loquendi_ of Isaiah, not so much the real islands, as rather
the islands in the sea of the world, the countries and kingdoms;
compare remarks on Rev. vi. 14, and Ps. xcvii. 1 (second Edition). The
_law_ for which the islands wait is not so much a ready-made code of
laws, as the single decisions of the living Lawgiver, which the
Gentiles, with anxious desire, shall receive as their rule in all
circumstances, after they have spontaneously submitted to the dominion
of the Servant of God, having been attracted by His loving
dispensations. Several unphilologically translate: "for His
_doctrine_," which does not even give a good sense, for it is not the
doctrine which is waited for; its value is known only after it has been
preached. The Servant of God appears here as the spiritual Ruler of the
nations; and this He becomes by being, in the fullest sense, the
Servant of God, so that His will is not different from the will of God,
nor [Hebrew: tvrh] from that of God, just as, in a lower territory,
even Asaph speaks the bold word: "Hear, my people, my law." "The singer
comes forth as one who has full authority, the 'Seer' and 'Prophet'
utter _laws_ which leave no alternative between Salvation and
destruction." Parallel is chap. ii. 3, 4, where the nations go up to
Zion, in order there to seek laws for the regulation of their practical
conduct, and according to which the Lord _judges_ among the nations,
and the law goes forth [Pg 219] out of Zion, and the word of the Lord
from Jerusalem. The difference is this only,--that, in that passage,
the matter is traced back immediately to God, while here, the Servant
of God is mentioned as the Mediator between Him and the Gentiles. But
we must keep in mind that, for chap. ii. also, the parallel passages in
chap. iv., ix., xi., furnish the supplement. We must, farther, compare
also chap. li. 5: "My righteousness is near, my salvation goes forth,
_mine arms shall judge the nations_, the isles shall wait for me, and
on mine arm shall they hope." The _judging_ in that passage does not
mean divine punitive judgments; but it is rather thereby intimated that
all the nations shall recognise the Lord as their King, to whose
government they willingly submit, and with whom they seek the decision
of their disputes. Matthew purposely changes it into: "And in _His
name_ shall the Gentiles trust." The desire for the commands of the
Lord is an effect of the love of His _name_, _i.e._, of Him who is
glorified by His deeds. For the name is the product of deeds,--here
especially of those designated in ver. 2 and 3. The commands are
desired and longed for, only because the person is beloved on account
of His deeds. Matthew has only distinctly brought out that which, in
the original text, is intimated by the connection with the preceding
verses. In consequence of this, His quiet, just, and merciful
dispensation, the isles shall wait for His law.

In ver. 5-7 the Lord addresses His Servant, and promises Him that, by
His omnipotence, the great work for which He has called Him, shall be
carried out and accomplished, viz., that the covenant relation to
Israel shall be fully realized, and the darkness of the Gentile world
shall be changed into light.

Ver. 5. "_Thus saith God the Lord, who createth the heavens and
stretcheth them out; who spreadeth forth the earth and that which
cometh out of it; who giveth breath unto the people upon it, and spirit
to them that walk thereon._"

The Prophet directs attention to the omnipotence of God, in order to
give a firm support to faith in the promise which exceeds all human
conception. It is by this that the accumulation of the predicates is to
be accounted for. He who fully realizes what a great thing it is to
bring an apostate world back to God, to that God who has become a
stranger to it, [Pg 220] will surely not explain this accumulation by a
"disposition, on the part of the Prophet, to diffuseness."

Ver. 6. "_I the Lord have called thee in righteousness, and I will
seize thine hand, and will keep thee, and give thee for the covenant of
the people and, for the Light of the Gentiles._"

It is so obvious that [Hebrew: bcdq] must be translated by "in
righteousness," that the explanations which disagree with it do not
deserve to be even mentioned. The mission of the Servant of God has
its root in the divine _righteousness_, which gives to every one his
due,--to the covenant-people, salvation. Even apart from the promise,
the appearance of Christ rests on the righteousness of God. For it is
in opposition to the nature and character of a people of God to be, for
any length of time, in misery, and shut up to one corner of the earth.
That which is to be accomplished for Israel by the Servant of God,
forms, in the sequel, the first subject of discourse. But even that
which He affords to the _Gentiles_ is, at the same time, given to
Israel, inasmuch as it is one of their prerogatives that salvation for
the Gentiles should go forth from them. As, here, the mission of the
Servant of God, so, in chap. xlv. 13, the appearance of the lower
deliverer appears as the work of divine righteousness: "I have raised
him up in righteousness, and all his ways I will make straight."
Similarly also in chap. xli. 2: "Who raised up from the East him whom
righteousness calls wherever he goes," _i.e._, him, all whose steps are
determined by God's righteousness, who, in all his undertakings, is
guided by it.--The seizing by the hand, the keeping, &c., are the
consequence of His being called, and are equivalent to: just because I
have called him, therefore will I, &c. Luther remarks: "Namely, for
this reason, that Satan and the world, with all their might and wisdom,
will _resist_ thy work." In the words: "For the Covenant of the people,
and for the Light of the Gentiles," [Hebrew: eM] and [Hebrew: gviM]
form an antithesis. The absence of the article shows that we ought
properly to translate: "For a Covenant of a people, for a Light of
Gentiles." It is thus, in the first instance, only said that the
Servant of God should be the personal covenant for a people; but _what_
people that should be, cannot admit of a moment's doubt. To Israel, as
such, the name of the _people_ pre-eminently belongs. Israel, in
preference to all others, is called [Hebrew: eM] (compare _Gesenius'_
[Pg 221] Thesaurus _s.v._ [Hebrew: gvi]), because it is only the people
of God that is a people in the full sense, connected by an internal
unity; the Gentiles are [Hebrew: la eM], _non-people_, according to
Deut. xxxii. 21, because they lack the only real tie of unity. But what
is still more decisive is the mention of the _Covenant_. The covenant
can belong to the covenant-people only, [Greek: hon hai diathekai],
Rom. ix. 4,--the old, no less than the new one. The covenant with
Abraham is an everlasting covenant of absolute exclusiveness, Gen.
xvii. 7. The Servant of God is called the personal and embodied
Covenant, because in His appearance the covenant made with Israel is to
find its full truth; and every thing implied in the very idea of a
covenant, all the promises flowing from this idea, are to be in Him,
Yea and Amen. The Servant of God is here called the Covenant of Israel,
just in the same manner as in Mic. v. 4 (comp. Ephes. ii. 14), it is
said of Him: "This (man) is Peace," because in Him, peace, as it were,
represents itself personally;--just as in chap. xlix. 6, He is called
the _Salvation_ of God, because this salvation becomes personal in Him,
the Saviour,--just as in Gen. xvii. 10, 13, circumcision is called a
covenant, as being the embodied covenant,--just as in Luke xxii. 20,
the cup, the blood of Christ, is called the New Covenant, because in it
it has its root. The explanation: Mediator of the covenant, [Greek:
diathekes enguos], is meagre, and weakens the meaning. The circumstance
that the Servant of God is, without farther qualification, called the
Covenant of the people, shows that He stands in a different relation to
the covenant from that of Moses, to whom the name of the _Mediator_ of
the covenant does not the less belong than to Him. From Jer. xxxi. 31,
we learn which are the blessings and gifts which the Servant of God is
to bestow, and by which He represents himself as the personal Covenant.
They are concentrated in the closest connection to be established by
Him between God and His people: "I will be their God, and they shall be
my people." It is only in the New Covenant, described in that passage
of Jeremiah, that the Old Covenant attains to its truth. The second
destination of the Servant of God, which, according to the context,
here comes into special consideration, is, to be _the Light of the
Gentiles_. By the realization of this destination, an important feature
in [Pg 222] the former was, at the same time, realized. For it formed
part of the promises of the covenant with Israel that, from the midst
of them, salvation for all the families of the earth should go forth,
as our Saviour says: [Greek: he soteria ek ton Ioudaion estin.] Light
is here, according to the common _usus loquendi_ of Scripture, a
figurative designation of _salvation_. In the parallel passage, chap.
xlix. 6, light is at once explained by salvation. The designation
proceeds upon the supposition that the Gentiles, not less than Israel,
(comp. chap. ix. 1 [2]) shall, until the appearance of the Servant of
God, sit in darkness and in the shadow of death,--that they are in
misery, although, in some instances, it may be a _brilliant_ misery.
The following verse farther carries out and declares what is implied in
the promise: "Light of the Gentiles." Parallel is chap. lx. 3: "And the
heathen walk in thy (Zion's) light"--they become partakers of the
salvation which shines for Zion--"and kings in the brightness which
riseth to thee."--The supporters of that opinion, which understands
Israel by the Servant of God, are in no small difficulty regarding this
verse, and cannot even agree as to the means of escape from that
difficulty. Several assume that [Hebrew: eM] is used collectively, and
refer it to the Gentile nations. But opposed to this explanation is the
evident antithesis of [Hebrew: eM] and [Hebrew: gviM]; and it is
entirely overthrown by the parallel passage in chap. xlix. Scripture
knows nothing of a covenant with the Gentiles. According to the view of
the Old, as well as of the New Testament, the Gentiles are received
into the communion of the covenant with Israel. Others (_Hitzig_,
_Ewald_) explain: "covenant-people, _i.e._, a mediatorial, connecting
people, a bond of union between God and the nations." But the passage,
chap. xlix. 8, is most decidedly opposed to this. _Farther_--The
parallelism with [Hebrew: avr gviM] shows that [Hebrew: brit eM] is the
_status constructus_. But _f[oe]dus alicujus_, is, according to the
remark of _Gesenius_, _f[oe]dus cum aliquo sancitum_. Thus in Lev.
xxvi. 45, the covenant of the ancestors is the covenant entered into
with the ancestors; Deut. iv. 31; Lev. xxvi. 42 (the covenant of Jacob,
the covenant of Isaac, &c.) According to _Knobel_: "the true theocrats
are to become a covenant of the people, the restorers of the
Israelitish Theocracy, they themselves having connection and unity by
faithfully holding fast by Jehovah, and by representing His cause."
This explanation, [Pg 223] also, is opposed to the _usus loquendi_,
according to which "covenant of the people" can have the sense only of
"covenant with the people," not a covenant among the people. And,
_farther_, the parallel passage in chap. xlix. 8 is opposed to this
interpretation also, inasmuch as, in that passage, the Servant of the
Lord is called [Hebrew: brit eM], not on account of what He is in
himself, but on account of the influence which He exercises upon
others, upon the whole of the people: "That thou mayest raise up the
land, distribute desolate heritages, that thou mayest say to the
prisoners: Go forth," &c. In that passage the land, the desolate
heritages, the prisoners, &c., evidently correspond to the people.
_Finally_--A covenant is a relation between two parties standing
opposite one another. "The word is used," says _Gesenius_, "of a
covenant formed between nations, between private persons, _e.g._, David
and Jonathan, between Jehovah and the people of Israel." But here no
parties are mentioned to be united by the covenant.

Ver. 7. "_That thou mayest open blind eyes, bring out them that are
bound from the prison, and from the house of confinement them that sit
in darkness._"

On account of the connection with the "for the Light of the Gentiles,"
which would stand too much isolated, if, in the words immediately
following, Israel alone were again the subject of discourse, the
activity of God here mentioned refers, in the first instance, to the
_Gentiles_; and the words: "them that sit in darkness," moreover,
evidently point back to "for the Light of the Gentiles." But from chap.
xlix. 9, and also from ver. 16 of the chapter before us, where the
blindness of Israel is mentioned, it appears that Israel too must not
be excluded. Hence, we shall say: It is here more particularly
described how the Servant of God _proves_ himself as the Covenant of
the people and the Light of the Gentiles, how He puts an end to the
misery under which both equally groan. It will be better to understand
_blindness_, in connection with imprisonment, sitting in darkness, as a
designation of the need of salvation, than as a designation of
spiritual blindness, of the want of the light of knowledge. That is
also suggested by the preceding: "for the Light of the Gentiles,"
which, according to the common _usus loquendi_, and according to chap.
ix. 1 (2) is not to be referred to the spiritual illumination
especially, [Pg 224] but to the bestowal of salvation. To this view we
are likewise led by a comparison of ver. 16: "And I will lead the blind
by a way that they knew not, I will lead them in paths that they have
not known, I will change the darkness before them into light, the
crooked things into straightness." The _blind_ in this verse are those
who do not know what to do, and how to help themselves, those who
cannot find the way of salvation, the miserable; they are to be led by
the Lord on the ways of salvation, which are unknown to them. In a
similar sense and connection, the blind are, elsewhere also, spoken of,
comp. Remarks on Ps. cxlv. 8.--On the words: "Bring out them that are
bound from the prison," _Knobel_ remarks: "The citizens of Judah were,
to a great extent, imprisoned; the Prophet hopes for their deliverance
by the theocratic portion of the people." A strange hope! By this
coarsely literal interpretation, the connection with "for the Light of
the Gentiles" is broken up; and this is the less admissible that the
words at the close of the verse: "those that sit in darkness," so
clearly refer to it. _Imprisonment_ is a figurative designation of the
_miserable condition_, not less than, the _darkness_, which, on account
of the light contrasted with it, and on account of chap. ix. 1 (2),
cannot be understood otherwise than figuratively. Under the image of
men bound in dark prisons, the miserable and afflicted appear also in
Ps. cvii. 10-16; Job xxxvi. 8, where the words, "bound in fetters," are
explained by the parallel "holden in the cords of misery." When David,
in Ps. cxlii. 8, prays: "Bring my soul out of the prison," he himself
explains this in Ps. cxliii. 11 by the parallel: "Thou wilt bring my
soul out of _trouble_;" comp. also Ps. xxv. 17: "O bring thou me out of
my _distresses_." If we here understand the prison literally, we might,
with the same propriety in other passages, also, _e.g._, in Ps. lxvi.
11, understand _literally_ the net, the snare, the trap.

Ver. 8: "_I the Lord, that is my name, and my honour I will not give to
another, nor my glory to idols._ Ver. 9. _The former_ (things),
_behold, they came to pass, and new_ (things) _do I declare; before
they spring forth, I cause you to hear._"

We have here the solemn close and exhortation. At the close of chap.
xli. it had been pointed out, how the prediction of the _Conqueror from
the East_ serves for the glory of Jehovah, [Pg 225] who thereby proves
himself to be the only true God. Here the zeal of God for His glory is
indicated as the reason which has brought forth the prediction of the
_Servant of God_ and His glorious work,--a prediction which cannot be
accounted for from natural causes. It is thus the object of the
prophecy which is here, in the first instance, stated. It is intended
to manifest the true God as such, as a God who is zealously bent on His
glory. But the same attribute of God which called forth the prophecy,
calls forth also the events prophesied, viz., the appearance of the
Servant of God, and the victory over the idols accomplished thereby,
the bringing forth of the law of God over the whole earth through Him,
and the full realization of the covenant with Israel. The thought is
this:--that a God who does not manifest and prove himself as such, who
is contented with the honour granted to Him without His interference,
cannot be a God; that the true God must of necessity be filled with the
desire of absolute, exclusive dominion, and cannot but manifest and
prove this desire. From this thought, the prophecy and that which it
promises flow with a like necessity.--According to _Stier_, [Hebrew:
rawnvt], "the former (things)" means "the redemption of the exiled by
Cyrus," which in chaps. xli. xlviii. forms the historico-typical
foreground, whose coming is here anticipated by the Prophet. But the
parallel passages, chaps. xli. 22, xliii. 9, xlviii. 3, are conclusive
against this view; for, according to these passages, it is only the
former already fulfilled predictions of the Prophet and his colleagues,
from the beginnings of the people, which can be designated by "the
former (things)." By "the new (things)" therefore, is to be understood
the aggregate of the events which are predicted in the second part, to
which belongs the prophecy of the Servant of God which immediately
precedes, and which the Prophet has here as pre-eminently in view
(_Michaelis_: _et nova, imprimis de Messia_), as, in the parallel
passage chap. xli. 22, the announcement of the conqueror from the East.
Both of these verses seem to round off our prophecy, by indicating that
such disclosures regarding the Future are not by any means intended to
serve for the gratification of idle curiosity, but to advance the same
object to which the events prophesied are also subservient, viz., the
promotion of God's glory. The [Pg 226] modern view of Prophetism is
irreconcileable with the verses under consideration, which evidently
shew, that the prophets themselves were filled with a different
consciousness of their mission and position And in like manner it
follows from them, that there is no reason to put, by means of a forced
interpretation, the prophecy within the horizon of the Prophet's time,
seeing that the Prophet himself shows himself to be thoroughly
penetrated by its altogether supernatural character.



[Footnote 1: This embarrassment becomes still more obvious in the
explanation of _Vatke_, who understands by the Servant of God, "the
harmless ideal abstract of the people;" and that of _Beck_, who
understands thereby "the notion of the people."]

[Footnote 2: The Hebrew word is [Hebrew: mwpT], which means "judgment,"
"right," "law." Dr. _Hengstenberg_ has translated it by _Recht_, which
is, as nearly as possible, expressed by the English word "right,"
(_jus_,) as including "law" and "statutes."--_Tr._]




                           CHAPTER XLIX. 1-9.


The Servant of God, with whose person the Prophet had. by way of
preparation, already made us acquainted in the first book of the second
part, in chap. xlii., is here, at the beginning of the second book, at
once introduced as speaking, surprising, as it were, the readers. In
ver. 1-3, we have the destination and high calling which the Lord
assigned to His Servant; in ver. 4, the contrast and contradiction of
the result of this mission; the covenant-people, to whom it is, in the
first instance, directed, reward with ingratitude His faithful work. In
ver. 5 and 6, we are told what God does in order to maintain the
dignity of His Servant; as a compensation for obstinate, rebellious
Israel, He gives Him the _Gentiles_ for an inheritance. From ver. 7 the
Prophet takes the word. In ver. 7 the original contempt which,
according to the preceding verses, the Servant of God meets with,
especially in _Israel_, is contrasted with the respectful worship of
nations and kings which is to follow after it. Ver. 8 and 9 describe
how the Servant of God proves himself to be the embodied covenant of
the people, and form the transition to a general description of the
enjoyment of salvation, which, in the Messianic times, shall be
bestowed upon the Congregation of the Lord. This description goes on to
chap. l. 3, and then, in chap. l. 4 ff., the person of the Servant of
the Lord is anew brought before us.

The Messianic explanation of our passage is already met with in the New
Testament. It is with reference to it that [Pg 227] Simeon, in Luke ii.
30, 31, designates the Saviour as the [Greek: soterion] of God, which
He had prepared before the face of all people (comp. ver. 6 of our
passage: "That thou mayest be my salvation unto the end of the earth"),
as the [Greek: phos eis apokalupsin ethnon kai doxan laou sou Israel];
comp. again ver. 6, according to which the Servant of God is to be at
the same time, the light of the Gentiles, to raise up the tribes of
Jacob, and to restore the preserved of Israel. Ver. 1: "The Lord hath
called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath He made
mention of my name," is alluded to in Luke ii. 21: [Greek: Kai eklethe
to onoma autou Iesous, to klethen hupo tou angelou pro tou
sullephthenai auton en te koilia] (comp. i. 31: [Greek: sullepse en
gastri kai texe huion kai kaleseis to onoma autou Iesoun]) as is
sufficiently evident from [Greek: en te koilia] _sc. matris_, which
exactly answers to the [Hebrew: mbTN] in the passage before us. In Acts
xiii. 46, 47, Paul and Barnabas prove, from the passage under review,
the destination of Christ to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, and their
right to offer to them the salvation despised and rejected by the Jews:
[Greek: idou strephometha eis ta ethne. houto gar entetaltai hemin ho
Kurios. tetheika se eis phos ethnon tou einai se eis soterian heos
eschatou tes ges.] In the destination which, in Isaiah, the Lord
assigns to Christ, Paul and Barnabas recognize an indirect command for
his disciples, a rule for their conduct. In 2 Cor. vi. 1, 2, ver. 8 is
quoted, and referred to the Messianic time.

It is obvious that the Jews could not be favourable to the Messianic
interpretation; but the Christian Church has held fast by it for nearly
1800 years. Even such interpreters as _Theodoret_ and _Clericus_, who
are everywhere rather disposed to explain away real Messianic
references, than to find the Messiah where He is not presented,
consider the Messianic interpretation to be, in this place, beyond all
doubt. The former says: "This was said with a view to the Lord Christ,
who is the seed of Abraham, through whom the nations received the
promise." And when, in our century, men returned to the faith, the
Messianic interpretation also returned. If the Church has Christ at
all, it is impossible that she should fail to find Him here.

_Gesenius_, and those who have followed him, appeal to the
circumstance, that the Messiah could not well be introduced as
speaking, and, least of all, in such a manner, without any introduction
[Pg 228] and preparation. But it is difficult to see how this argument
can be advanced by those who themselves assume that a mere
personification, the collective body of the prophets, or, as _Beck_
expresses it, the Prophet [Greek: kat'exochen] as a general
substantial individual, or even the people, can be introduced as
speaking. The introduction of persons is a necessary result of the
dramatic character of prophetic Speech, comp., _e.g._, chap. xiv.,
where now the king of Babylon, then the inhabitants of the Sheol, and
again Jehovah, are introduced as speaking. The person who is here
introduced as speaking is already known from chap. xlii., where _he is
spoken of_. The prophecy before us stands to that prophecy in the very
same relation as does Ps. ii. 7-9, where the Anointed One suddenly
appears as speaking, to the preceding verses, where He was spoken of
The Messiah is here so distinctly described, as to His nature and
character, that it is impossible not to recognise Him. Who but He
should be the Covenant of the people, the Light of the Gentiles, the
Saviour for all the ends of the earth? The point which was here
concerned was not, first to introduce Him to the knowledge of the
people. His image existed there already in sharp outlines, even from
and since Gen. xlix. 10, where the Peaceful One meets us, in whom Judah
attains to the full height of his destination, and to whom the people
adhere. The circumstance that it is just here that the Messiah appears
as speaking, forms the most appropriate introduction to the second
book, in which He is the principal figure.--It is by a false literal
interpretation only that ver. 8, 9 have been advanced in opposition to
the Messianic interpretation.

The arbitrariness of the non-Messianic interpretation manifests
itself in this also, that its supporters can, up to this day, not
agree as to the subject of the prophecy. 1. According to several
interpreters--_Hitzig_, last of all--the Servant of God is to be
_Israel_, and the idea this, that Israel would, at some future period,
be the teacher of the Gentiles, and would spread the true religion on
earth. It is apparently only that this interpretation receives some
countenance from ver. 3, where the Servant of the Lord is called
Israel. For this name does not there stand as an ordinary _nomen
proprium_, but as an honorary name, to designate the high dignity and
destination of the Servant of God. As this name had passed over from
[Pg 229] an individual to a people, so it may again be transferred from
the people to that person in whom the people attain their destination,
in which, up to that time, they had failed But decisive against this
explanation, which makes the whole people the subject, is ver. 5,
according to which the Servant of God is destined to lead back to the
Lord, Jacob and Israel (in the ordinary sense), who then must be
different from Him; ver. 6, according to which He is to raise up the
tribes of Jacob; ver. 8, 9, according to which He is to be the Covenant
of the people, to deliver the prisoners, &c. (_Knobel_ remarks on this
verse: "Nothing is clearer than that the Servant of God is not
identical with the mass of the people, but is something different.")
Supposing even that the people, destined to be the teachers of the
Gentiles, appear here as speaking, it is difficult to see how, in ver.
4, they could say that hitherto they had laboured in vain in their
vocation, and seen no fruits, since hitherto the people had made no
attempt at all at the conversion of the Gentiles. 2. _Maurer_,
_Knobel_, and others, endeavour to explain it of _the better portion of
the people_. But conclusive against this interpretation is ver. 6,
according to which the Servant of God has the destination of restoring
the preserved of Israel, and hence must be distinct from the better
portion; ver. 8, according to which He is given for a Covenant of the
people, from which, according to ver. 4 and 6, the ungodly are
excluded; so that the idea of the people is identical with that of the
better portion. In general, the contrasting of the better portion of
the people with the whole people, Jacob and Israel, the centre and
substance of which was formed just by the [Greek: ekloge], can scarcely
be thought of, and is without any analogy. Nor is the mention of the
_womb_. and _bowels of the mother_, in ver. 1, reconcileable with a
merely imaginary person, and that, moreover, a person of a character so
indistinct and indefinite,--a character which has no definite and
palpable historical beginnings. The parallel passages, in which the
calling from the womb is mentioned, treat of real persons, of
individuals.--3. According to several interpreters (_Jarchi_, _Kimchi_,
_Abenezra_, _Grotius_, _Steudel_, _Umbreit_, _Hofmann_), the Servant of
the Lord is to be none other than _the Prophet himself_. No argument
has been adduced in favour of this view, except the use of the first
person, ("If here, without introduction and preparation, a discourse
begins with the first [Pg 230] person, it refers most naturally to the
Prophet, who is the author of the Book"),--an argument of very
subordinate significance, and the more so that the person of the
Prophet, everywhere else in the second part of Isaiah, steps so
entirely into the background behind the great objects with which he is
engaged. To follow thus the first appearance may, indeed, be becoming
to a eunuch from Ethiopia, but not a Christian expounder of Scripture.
The contents of the prophecy are decidedly in opposition to this
opinion. Even the circumstance that a single prophet should assume the
name of Israel, ver. 3, appears an intolerable usurpation. _Farther_--
Like all the other prophets, Isaiah was sent to the Jews, and not to
the Gentiles; but at the very outset, _the most distant lands and all
the distant nations_ are here called upon to hearken. The Lord says to
His Servant that the restoration of Israel was too little for Him, that
He should be a light and salvation for all the heathen nations from one
end of the earth to the other; kings and Princes shall fall down before
Him, adoring and worshipping. The Prophet would thus simply have raised
himself to be the Saviour. _Umbreit_ expressly acknowledges this: "He
is to be the holy pillar of clouds and fire which leads the people back
to their native land, after the time of their punishment has expired.
But a still more glorious vocation and destination is in store for the
prophets; they receive the highest, the Messianic destination." The
usurpation of which the Servant of God would have made himself guilty,
appears so much the more clearly, when it is known, that the work of
the Servant of God comprehends even all that also, which is described
in ver. 10-23, viz., the blossoming of the Church of God, her
enlargement by the Gentiles, &c. _It is obvious that, if the
interpretation which refers this prediction to the prophets were the
correct one, the authority of the Old Testament prophecy would be gone;
the authority of the Lord himself would be endangered, inasmuch as He
always recognizes, in these prophets, organs of divine inspiration and
power._ A vain attempt is made at mitigating this usurpation, by
imperceptibly substituting the collective body of the prophets for the
single prophet. This view thus leads to, and interferes with another
which we shall immediately examine. But if we would not give up the
sole argument by which this [Pg 231] exposition is supported, viz., the
use of the first person, everything must, in the first instance, apply
to and be fulfilled in Isaiah; and the other prophets can come into
consideration only as continuators of his work and ministry. He is
entitled to use the first person in that case only, when he is a
perfect manifestation of prophetism.--4. According to _Gesenius_, the
Servant of the Lord is to be _the collective body of the prophets_, the
prophetic order. In opposition to this view, _Stier_ remarks: "We
maintain that, according to history, there did not at that time (the
time of the exile, in which _Gesenius_ places this prophecy) exist any
prophetic order, or any distinguished blossom of it; that hence it was
impossible for any reasonable man to entertain this hope, when viewed
in this way, without looking farther and higher." Ver. 1 is decisive
against a mere personification. The name of Israel, too, in ver. 3, is
very little applicable to the whole prophetic order. This is
sufficiently evident from the fact that _Gesenius_, in his Commentary,
declared this word to be spurious; and it was at a later period only,
when he had become bolder, that he endeavoured to adapt it to his self-
chosen subject. Nowhere in the Old Testament do the prophets appear
like the Servant of God here--as the Covenant of the people, ver. 8, as
the Light of the Gentiles, ver. 6.


                           * * * * * * * * * *

Ver. 1. "_Listen, O isles, unto me, and hearken ye people from far; the
Lord hath called me from the womb, from the bowels of my mother hath He
made mention of my name._"

As the stand-point which the Messiah occupies in the vision of the
Prophet, we have to conceive of the time, at which He had already
entered upon His office, and had already experienced many proofs of the
Jews'unbelief and hardness of heart,--an event of the Future, the
foresight of which was, even in a human point of view, very readily
suggested to the Prophet after the painful experience acquired during
his own long ministry; comp. chap. vi. For the fruitlessness of His
ministry among the mass of the covenant-people, ver. 4, as well as the
great contempt which the Servant of God found among them, ver. 7, are
represented as having already taken place; [Pg 232] while the
enlightenment of the Gentiles, the worship of the kings, &c, which are
to be expected by Him, are represented as being still future. In the
same manner, in chap. liii., the humiliation of the Servant of God
appears as past; the glorification, as future, the reason why the
_isles_ are addressed (comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 4) appears in ver.
6 only, at the close of the discourse of the Servant of God, for all
that precedes serves as a preparation. In that verse, the Servant of
the Lord announces that the Lord had appointed Him to be the Light of
the Gentiles; that He should be His salvation unto the ends of the
earth. It is very significant that the second book at once begins with
an address to the Gentiles, inasmuch us, thus, we are here introduced
into the sphere of a redemption which does not refer to a single
nation, like that with which the _first_ book is engaged, but to the
ends of the earth. At the close of the first book, in chap. xlviii. 20,
it was said: "Declare ye, tell this, utter it even to the end of the
earth, say ye: The Lord hath redeemed his servant Jacob." The fact that
the redemption, in the first instance peculiar to Jacob, is to be
proclaimed to all the nations of the earth, leads us to expect that
these nations, too, have their portion in the Lord; that at some future
period they are to hear a message which concerns them still _more
particularly_. This expectation is realized here, at the opening of the
second book. The fact that the Gentiles are to listen here, as those
who have a personal interest in the message, is proved by the
circumstance, that the words: "Unto the ends of the earth," in ver. 6
of the chapter before us, point back to the same words in chap. xlviii.
20.--_The Lord had called me from the womb._ It is sufficient to go
thus far back in order to repress or refute the idea of His having
himself usurped His office, and to furnish a foundation for the
expectation that God would powerfully uphold and protect His Servant in
the office which He himself had assigned to Him. Calvin remarks on
these words: "They do not indicate the commencement of the time of His
vocation, as if God had, only from the womb, called Him; but it is just
as if it were said: Before I came forth from the womb, God had decreed
that I was to undertake this office. In the same manner Paul also says
that he had been separated from his mother's womb, although he was
chosen before [Pg 233] the foundation of the world." To be called from
the womb is, in itself, nothing extraordinary; it is common to all the
servants of the Lord. Jeremiah ascribes it to himself in chap. i. 5:
"Before I formed thee in the belly, I knew thee; and before thou camest
forth out of the womb I sanctified thee;" and in harmony with this
passage in Jeremiah--not with that before us--Paul says in Gal. i. 15:
[Greek: ho theos ho aphorisas] (corresponding to: I have _sanctified_
thee) [Greek: me ek koilias metros mou.] But we have here merely the
_introduction to what follows_, where the calling, to which the Servant
of God had been destined from the womb appears as quite unique.--_From
the bowels of my mother hath He made mention of my name._ The name is
here not an ordinary proper name, but _a name descriptive of the
nature_,--one by which His office and vocation are designated. This
making mention was, in the case of Christ, not a thing concealed; the
prophecy before us received its palpable confirmation and fulfilment;
inasmuch as, in reference to it, Joseph received, even before His
birth, the command to call Him Jesus, Saviour: [Greek: texetai de huion
kai kaleseis to onoma autou Iesoun. autos gar sosei ton laon autou apo
ton hamartion auton], Matth. i. 21, after the same command had
previously come to Mary, Luke i. 31; comp. ii. 21, where, as we have
already remarked, there is a distinct reference to the passage before
us.

Ver. 2. "_And He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword, in the shadow
of His hand hath He hid me, and He hath made me a sharpened arrow, in
His quiver hath He hid me._"

According to the common interpretation, the words: "He hath made my
mouth like a sharp sword. He hath made me a sharpened arrow," are to
express only such a gift of powerful, impressive speech as is common to
all the servants of God, to all the prophets. But the two subjoined
clauses are opposed to that interpretation. The second and fourth
clauses state the reason of the first and third, and point to the
source from which that emanates which is stated in them. There cannot
be any doubt but that in the second and fourth clauses, the Servant of
God indicates that He stands under the protection of divine
omnipotence, so that the expression: "Whom I uphold," in chap. xlii. 1,
is parallel. The _shadow_ is the ordinary figure of protection. The
figure of the sword is dropped in the second clause, and hence the
objection, that a drawn sword does not require any protection, is out
of place. This will [Pg 234] appear from a comparison of chap. li. 16:
"And I put my words in thy mouth, and I cover thee with the shadow of
mine hand," where the sword is not mentioned at all, and the shadow
belongs simply to the person. The quiver which keeps the arrow is
likewise a natural image of divine protection. The two accessory
clauses do not suit, if the first and third clauses are referred to the
_rhetorical endowment_ of the Servant of God; _that does not flow from
the source of the protecting omnipotence of God_. These accessory
clauses rather suggest the idea that, by the comparison of the _mouth_
with the sharp sword, of the _whole person_ with the sharpened arrow,
there is indicated _the absolutely conquering power which, under the
protection of omnipotence, adheres to the word and person of the
Servant of God_, so that He will easily put down everything which
opposes,--equivalent to: _He has endowed me with His omnipotence, so
that my word produces destructive effects, and puts down all
opposition, just as does His word_; so that there would be a parallel
in chap. xi. 4, where the word of the Servant of God likewise appears
as being borne by omnipotence: "He smiteth the earth with the rod of
His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked." To
the same result we are led also by a comparison of chap. li. 16, where
the word of the Lord, which is put into the mouth of the Servant of
God, is so living and powerful, so borne by omnipotence, that thereby
the heavens are planted, and the foundations of the earth are laid. But
of special importance are those passages of Revelation which refer to
the verse under consideration. In chap. i. 16, the sharp two-edged
sword does not by any means represent the power of the discourse
piercing the heart for salvation; but rather the destructive power of
the word which is borne by omnipotence. It designates the almighty
punitive power of Christ directed against his enemies. "By the
circumstance, that the sword goes out of the mouth of Christ, that
destructive power is attributed to His mere word, He appears as
partaking of divine omnipotence. For it belongs to God to slay by the
words of His mouth, Hos. vi. 5." The same applies to chap. ii. 16. On
Rev. xix. 15: "And out of his mouth goeth a sharp sword, that with it
He should smite the nations," we remarked: "the sharp sword is not that
of a teaching king, [Pg 235] but that of omnipotence which speaks and
it is done, and slayeth by the breath of the lips. How Christ casts
down His enemies by the word of His mouth is seen, in a prophetical
instance, John xviii. 6; Acts ix. 4, 5." With the sword, Christ appears
even where He does not mean to destroy, but to bring salvation; for,
even in those who are to be blessed, hostile powers are to be overcome.
The image, however, is here, in the fundamental passage, occasioned by
the comparison of the Servant of God with the conqueror from the East,
whose sword, according to chap. xli. 2, the Lord makes as dust, and his
bow as the driven stubble. Where the mere _word_ serves as a sword, the
effect must be much more powerful. The conquering power throwing down
every opposing power, which, in the first clause, is assigned to the
mouth, is, in the third clause ("And He hath made _me_ a sharpened
arrow"), attributed to the whole person. He, of whom it was already
said in Ps. xlv. 6: "Thine arrows are sharp, people fall under thee,
they enter into the heart of the king's enemies," is himself to be
esteemed as a sharp arrow.

Ver. 3. "_And He said unto me: Thou art my Servant, O Israel, in whom I
glorify myself._"

"My Servant" stands here as an honorary _designation_; to be the
Servant of God appears here as the highest privilege, as is evident not
only from the analogy of the parallel passages, which treat of the
Servant of God (comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 1), but also from the
parallel second clause. In it, the Servant of God is called _Israel_ as
the concentration and consummation of the covenant-people, as He in
whom it is to attain to its destination, in whom its idea is to be
realized. (It is evident from ver. 5, and from those passages in the
second part in which the people of Israel is spoken of as the Servant
of God [comp. remarks on chap. xlii.], that Israel must here be
understood as the name of the people, not as the name of the ancestor
only.) _Haevernick_ rightly remarks that the Messiah is here called
Israel, "in contrast to the people to whom this name does not properly
belong." Analogous is Matt. ii. 15, where that which, in the Old
Testament, is written of Israel, is referred to Christ. As the true
Israel, Christ himself also represents himself in John i. 52; with a
reference to that which in Gen. xxviii. 12 is written, not of Jacob as
[Pg 236] an individual, but as the representative of the whole race, it
is said there: [Greek: ap'arti opsesthe ton ouranon aneogota, kai tous
angelous tou theou anabainontas kai katabainontas epi ton huion tou
anthropou.] All those declarations of the Old Testament, in which the
name of Jacob or Israel is used to designate the _election_, to the
exclusion of the false seed, the true Israelites in whom there is no
guile,--all those passages prepare the way for, and come near to the
one before us. Thus Ps. lxiii. 1: "Truly good is God to Israel, to such
as are of a clean heart;" and then Ps. xxiv. 6: "They that seek thy
face are Jacob," _i.e._, those only who, with zeal and energy in
sanctification, seek for the favour of God. In the passage before us,
the same principle is farther carried out. The true Israel is
designated as he in whom God glorifies, or will glorify himself,
inasmuch as his glorification will bear testimony to God's mercy and
faithfulness; comp. John xii. 23: [Greek: eleluthen he hora hina
doxasthe ho huios tou anthropou]; xvii. 5: [Greek: kai nun doxason me
su pater.] The verb [Hebrew: par] means in _Piel_, "to adorn," in
_Hithp._ "to adorn one's self," "to glorify one's self." Thus it occurs
in Judg. vii. 2; Is. x. 15; lx. 21: "Work of my hands for glorifying,"
_i.e._, in which I glorify myself; lxi. 3: "Planting of the Lord for
glorifying." There is no reason for abandoning this well-supported
signification either here or in chap. xliv. 23: "The Lord hath redeemed
Israel and glorified himself in Israel." If God glorifies himself in
His Servant, He just thereby gets occasion to glory in Him as a
monument of His goodness and faithfulness. Our Saviour prays in John
xii. 28: [Greek: Pater doxason sou to onoma.] The Father, by glorifying
the Son, glorifies at the same time His name. Those who explain
[Hebrew: atpar] by: _per quem ornabor_, overlook the circumstance that,
also in the phrase: "Thou art my Servant," the main stress does not,
according to the parallel passages, lie in that which the Servant has
to perform, but in His being the protected and preserved by God.

Ver. 4. "_And I said: I have laboured in vain, I have spent my strength
for emptiness and vanity; but my right is with the Lord, and my reward
with my God._"

The Servant of God, after having spoken of His sublime dignity and
mission, here prepares the transition for proclaiming His destination
to be a Saviour of the Gentiles, to whom His whole discourse is
addressed. He complains of the small [Pg 237] fruits of His ministry
among Israel; but comforts himself by the confidence placed upon the
righteousness of God, that the faithful discharge of the duty committed
to Him cannot remain without reward. The speaking on the part of the
Servant of God in this verse refers to the speaking of God in verse 3.
_Jerome_, who remarks on this point: "But when the Father told me that
which I have repeated, I answered Him: How wilt thou be glorified in
me, seeing that I have laboured in vain?" recognised this reference,
but erroneously viewed the words as being addressed to the Lord. It is
a soliloquy which we have here before us. Instead of "I said," we are
not at liberty to put: "I imagined;" the Servant of God had in reality
expended His strength for nothing and vanity. As the _scene_ of the
vain labour of the Servant of God, the _heathen world_ cannot be
thought of; inasmuch as this is, first in ver. 6, assigned to Him as an
indemnification for that which, according to the verse before us, He
had lost elsewhere. It is _Israel_ only which can be the object of the
vain labour of the Servant of God; for it was to them that, according
to ver. 5, the mission of the Servant of God in the first instance
referred: The Lord had formed Him to be His Servant, to bring back to
Him Jacob and Israel that were not gathered. Since, then, the mission
is directed to _apostate_ Israel, it can the less be strange that the
labour was in vain. To the same result we are led also by the
circumstance that, in ver. 6, the saving activity of the Servant of God
appears as limited to _the preserved_ of Israel, while the original
mission had been directed to the _whole_. And this portion to which His
activity is limited, is comparatively a _small_ portion. For that is
suggested by the circumstance that to have the preserved of Israel for
His portion is represented as a light thing--not at all corresponding
to the dignity of the Servant of God. As, in that verse, the preserved
of Israel form the contrast to the mass of the people _given up_ by the
Lord, so in the verse under consideration, the opposition which the
Servant of God finds, is represented as so great, that His ministry
was, in the main, in vain; so that accordingly the great mass of the
people must have been unsusceptible of it.--In the view that a great
portion of the people would reject the salvation offered in Christ, and
thereby become liable to judgment, the Song of Solomon [Pg 238] had
already preceded our Prophet. As regards the natural grounds of this
foresight, we remarked in the Commentary on the Song of Solomon, S.
245: "With a knowledge of human nature, and especially of the nature of
Israel, as it was peculiar to the people from the beginning, and was
firmly and deeply impressed upon them by the Mosaic laws,--after the
experience which the journey through the wilderness, the time of the
Judges, the reign of David and of Solomon also offered, it was
absolutely impossible for the enlightened to entertain the hope that,
at the appearance of the Messiah, the whole people would do homage to
Him with sincere and cordial devotion." How very much this was the
case, the very first chapter of Isaiah can prove. It is impossible that
one who has so deeply recognized the corrupted nature of his people,
should give himself up to vain patriotic fancies; to such an one, the
time of the highest manifestation of salvation must necessarily be, at
the same time, a period of the highest realization of judgment. The
same view which is given here, we meet with also in chap. liii. 1-3. In
harmony with Isaiah, Zechariah, too, prophesies, in chaps. xi., xiii.
8, that the greater portion of the Jews will not believe in Christ.
Malachi iii. 1-6, 19, 24, contrasts with the longed-for judgment upon
the heathen, the judgment which, in the Messianic time, is to be
executed upon the people itself.--On the words: "My right is with the
Lord, and my reward with my God," compare Lev. xix, 13: "The reward of
him that is hired shall not abide with thee all night until the
morning." The God who watches that among men the well-earned wages of
faithful labour shall not be withheld, will surely himself not withhold
them from His Servant. The right, the well-deserved reward of His
Servant is _with Him_; it is there safely kept, in order that it may be
delivered up to Him in due time. That which the Servant of the Lord
here, in the highest sense, says of himself, holds true of His inferior
servants also. Their labour in the Lord is, in truth, never in vain.
Their right and their reward can never fail them.

Ver. 5. "_And now, saith the Lord that formed me from the womb to be a
Servant to himself, to bring Jacob again to Him, and Israel which is
not gathered, and I am honoured in the eyes of the Lord, and my God was
my strength._ Ver. [Pg 239]6. _And He saith: It is too light a thing
that thou shouldest be my Servant only to raise up the tribes of Jacob,
and to restore the preserved of Israel, and I give thee for a light to
the Gentiles, that thou mayest be my Salvation unto the ends of the
earth._"

The confidence which the Servant of the Lord has placed in Him has not
been put to shame by the result, but rather has been gloriously
justified by Him. He who was, in the first instance, sent to Israel, is
appointed to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, in order to compensate Him
for the unbelief of those to whom His mission was in the first instance
directed. _And now_, _i.e._, since the matter stands thus (Gen. xlv.
8),--since Israel, to whom my mission is, in the first instance,
directed, reject me. _Saith the Lord_--That which the Lord spoke
follows in ver. 6 only, which, on account of the long interruption,
again begins with: "And He saith," equivalent to: I say. He hath
spoken. The declaration of the Lord has reference to the destination of
His Servant to be the Saviour of the Gentiles. This declaration is, in
ver. 5, based upon two reasons:--_first_, the frustration of the
original mission of the Servant of the Lord to the Jews; and
_secondly_, on the intimate relation in which He stands to the Lord,
who cannot withhold from Him the reward which He deserves for His work.
In the New Testament, also, the mission of Christ appears as being at
first directed to the Jews only. The Lord says, in Matt. xv. 24:
[Greek: ouk apestalen ei me eis ta probata ta apololota oikou Israel.]
He says, in Matt. x. 6, to the Apostles, after having forbidden them to
go to the heathens, and to the Samaritans, who were nothing but
disguised heathens: [Greek: poreuesthe de mallon pros ta probata ta
apololota oikou Israel.] Paul and Barnabas say, in Acts xiii. 46:
[Greek: humin en anankaion proton lalethenai ton logon tou Theou.
epeide de apotheisthe auton kai ouk axious krinete heautous tes aioniou
zoes, idou strephometha eis ta ethne.] It is rather an idle question to
ask what would have happened, if the Jews as a nation had accepted the
offered salvation. But so much is certain that here, in the prediction,
as well as in history, the rejection of Christ, on the part of the
Jews, appears to have been a necessary condition of His entering upon
His vocation as the Saviour of the Gentiles. Those who understood the
people by the Servant of the Lord refer [Hebrew: lwibb] to Jehovah, and
consider it as a Gerund. [Pg 240] _reducendo_, or _qui reducit ad se
Jacobum_. In the same way they explain also the Infinit. with [Hebrew:
l] in the following verse, as also in chap. li. 16. But although the
Infinit. with [Hebrew: l] is sometimes, indeed, used for the Gerund.,
yet this is neither the original nor the ordinary use; and nowhere does
it occur in such accumulation. Moreover, by this explanation, this
verse, as well as the following ones, are altogether broken up, and the
words [Hebrew: lwvbb ieqb aliv] must indicate the destination for which
He was formed. And it is not possible that Jehovah's bringing Jacob
back to himself should be a display of Israel's being formed from the
womb to be the Servant, inasmuch as the bringing back would not, like
the formation, belong to the first stage of the existence of the
people.--"_And Israel, which is not gathered._" Before [Hebrew: awr],
[Hebrew: la] must be supplied. According to the parallel words: "To
bring Jacob again to Him," the not gathering of Israel is to be
referred to its having wandered away from the Lord. It was appropriate
that this should be expressly mentioned, and not merely supposed, as is
the case in: "To bring Jacob again to Him." The image which lies at the
foundation, is that of a scattered flock; comp. Mic. ii. 12. Parallel
is Isaiah liii. 6: "All we _like sheep_ have gone astray, we have
turned every one to his own way."--To the words under consideration the
Lord alludes in Matt. xxiii. 37: [Greek: hIerousalem ... posakis
ethelesa epi sunagagein ta tekna sou hon tropon episunagei ornis ta
nossia heautes hupo tas pterugas kai ouk ethelesate]; comp. also Matt.
ix. 36: [Greek: idon de tous ochlous esplanchnisthe peri auton hoti
esan eskulmenoi kai erhrimmenoi hosei probata me echonta poimena.] On
account of chap. xi. 12, it will not do to take [Hebrew: asP] in the
signification of "to snatch away," "to carry off," as is done by
_Hitzig_. Moreover [Hebrew: nasP] means, indeed, "to be gathered," but
never "to be carried off" The Mazoreths would read [Hebrew: la] for
[Hebrew: lv]: "And that Israel might be gathered to _Him_." Thus it is
rendered, among the ancient translators, by _Aquila_ and the Chaldee;
while _Symmachus_, _Theodoret_, and the Vulgate express the negation.
Most of the modern interpreters have followed the Mazoreths. But the
assumption of several of these, that [Hebrew: la] is only a different
writing for [Hebrew: lv], is altogether without foundation, compare the
remarks on chap. ix. 2; and the reading of the Mazoreths is just like
all the _Kris_, a mere conjecture, owing its origin, as has already
been [Pg 241] remarked by _Jerome_, only to a bad Jewish patriotism.
The circumstance that, with the sole exception, of 2 Chron. xxx. 3,--an
exception which, from the character of the language of that book, is of
no importance--the verb [Hebrew: asP] in the signification "to gather"
has the person to whom it is gathered never joined to it by means of
[Hebrew: l], but commonly by means of [Hebrew: al], is of so much the
greater importance, that [Hebrew: l] has nothing to do with [Hebrew:
al]. When _Stier_ remarks that ver. 6, where Jacob and Israel were
again beside each other in a completely parallel clause, proves that
Israel's gathering can be spoken of positively only, he has overlooked
the essential difference of ver. 5, which refers to the position of the
Servant of God towards the whole people and ver. 6, which refers to His
destination for the _election_.--The words: "And I am honoured in the
eyes of the Lord, and my God is my strength," _i.e._, my protection and
helper, recapitulate what, in ver. 2 and 3, was said about the high
dignity of the Servant of God, of which the effect appears, in ver. 6,
in His appointment to be the Saviour of the Gentiles, after the mission
to Israel has been fruitless. In ver. 6, it is not the decree of the
salvation of the Gentiles through Christ which forms the subject (that
decree is an eternal one), but rather that this decree should be
carried out. It is for this that Israel's unbelief offers an occasion
"As the salvation of the elect among Israel (in reference to the great
mass, the Servant of God had laboured in vain, ver. 4) would be too
small a reward for thee, I assign to thee in addition to them, an
infinitely larger inheritance, viz., the whole heathen world." [Hebrew:
wvb] in _Hiphil_ frequently means "to lead back," in the ordinary
sense, but sometimes also "to lead back into the former, or _normal_
condition," "to restore," compare remarks on Dan. ix. 25; Ps. lxxx. 4.
The parallel, "to raise up," which is opposed to the _lying down_ (Ps.
xli. 9), shows that here it stands in the sense of "to restore." The
local leading back belongs to the sphere of Koresh, to whom the first
book is dedicated; but, with that, the abnormal condition of misery and
abasement, which is so much opposed to the idea of the people of God,
is not completely and truly removed. That which the Servant of God
bestows upon the elect of Israel, viz., _raising up and restoration_,
is, in substance, the same which, according to what follows, He becomes
to the _Gentiles_, [Pg 242] viz., _light and salvation_. By becoming
light and salvation to the elect of Israel, He raises them up and leads
them back, inasmuch as this was the normal, natural condition of the
covenant-people, from which they had only fallen by their sins. It is
to that, that the election is restored by the Servant of God. By the
_tribes of Jacob_, the better part only of the people is to be
understood, to the exclusion of those souls who are cut off from their
people, because they have broken the covenant of the Lord, comp. ver.
4. This appears from the addition: "And the preserved of Israel"
(the _Kethibh_ [Hebrew: neiri] is an adjective form with a passive
signification; the marginal reading [Hebrew: ncvri] is the Part.
Pass.); just as, similarly in Ps. lxxiii. 1, Israel is limited to
the true Israel by the explanatory clause: "Such as are of a clean
heart." The verb [Hebrew: ncr], "to watch," is, according to
_Gesenius_, especially used _de Jehova homines custodiente et tuente._
Hence, the preserved of Israel are those whom God keeps under His
gracious protection and care, in contrast to the great mass of the
covenant-breakers whom He _gives up_. Chap. lxv. 13, 14: "Behold my
servants shall eat, but ye shall be hungry; behold my servants shall
drink, but ye shall be thirsty; behold my servants shall rejoice, but
ye shall be ashamed; behold my servants shall sing for joy of heart,
but ye shall cry for sorrow of heart, and shall howl for vexation of
spirit," likewise points to a great separation which shall take place
in the Messianic time. _Light_ (compare remarks on chap. xlii. 6), and
_salvation_ are related to one another, as the image to the thing
itself From the circumstance that the point here in question is the
reward for the Servant of God, who is to be indemnified for the loss
which He suffered by Israel (comp. ver. 4), it is obvious that we must
not explain: "that my salvation be," but: "that thou mayest be my
salvation;" for it is only when He is the salvation that such an
indemnification is spoken of Moreover, the Infinitive with [Hebrew: l]
can here not well be understood otherwise than in the preceding clause.
The servant of God is the personal salvation of the Lord for the
heathen world; comp. chap. xlii. 6, and, in the chapter under
consideration, ver. 8, where He is called the _covenant_ of the people,
because this covenant finds in Him its truth; compare also the
expression: "This man is _peace_," in Mic. v. 4 (5). _Gesenius_ rightly
remarks, that [Pg 243] there is here an allusion to the promises given
to the Patriarchs, Gen. xii. 3, &c. In Christ, the Shiloh to whom the
people adhere, the old promise of the future extension of salvation to
all the Gentiles is to be fulfilled.

Ver. 7. "_Thus saith the Lord, the Redeemer of Israel, his Holy One, to
Him that is despised by every one, to the abhorrence of the people, to
the servant of rulers: Kings shall see and rise up, princes, and
prostrate themselves because of the Lord that is faithful, the Holy One
of Israel that hath chosen thee._"

Hitherto, the Servant of the Lord has spoken: here, the Prophet speaks
of Him. He gives a short and comprehensive summary of the contents of
ver. 1-6, the rejection of the Servant of God by the people to whom His
mission was, in the first instance, directed, and His appointment to be
the Saviour of the Gentiles. The matter is traced back to the Redeemer
of Israel and their Holy One, _i.e._, the high and glorious God,
because the Servant of God is, in the first instance, sent to Israel as
[Greek: diakonos peritomes huper aletheias theou eis to bebaiosai tas
epangelias ton pateron], Rom. xv. 8; but still more, because He himself
is the concentration of Israel (ver. 3), the [Greek: kephale tou
somatos tes ekklesias], Col. i. 18,--He in whose glorification the true
Israel, as opposed to the darkened refuse, attain to their right.
According to the context, the contempt, &c., must proceed chiefly _from
the apostate portion of the covenant-people_: The _princes and kings_
must, according to ver. 6 (comp. chap. lii. 15), be conceived of as
heathenish ones. The verse under consideration merely exhibits, in
short outlines, the contrast already alluded to in the preceding
context. It cannot appear at all strange that the Prophet foresees the
reproach of Christ, and His sufferings from the ungodly world. In those
Psalms which refer to the suffering righteous one, righteousness and
the hostility of the wicked world are represented as being inseparably
connected with each other. Hence it cannot be conceived of otherwise,
but that the Servant of God, who, in His person, represented the
_ideal_ of righteousness, should, in a very special manner, have been
liable to this hostility. Moreover, it can be proved that, in some
Psalms which refer to the suffering righteous one, David has, besides
the individual and the whole people, in view, at the same time, his own
[Pg 244] family, and Him in whom it was to centre; comp. my commentary
on Ps. Vol. iii. p. lxxx. ff. There seems here to be a special
reference to Ps. xxii. 7, 8: "And I am a worm and no man, a reproach of
man and despised of the people. All they that see me laugh me to scorn,
open their lips, shake their heads;" and it is the more natural to
assume this reference that, in chap. lii. 14; liii. 3, this passage
also is referred to [Hebrew: bzh] is, after the example of _Kimchi_,
viewed by several interpreters as an infinitive form standing in place
of a Noun, "despising or contemning," instead of "contempt," and this
again instead of "object of contempt." Others view it as the _Stat.
construct._ of an adjective [Hebrew: bzh] with a passive signification.
This latter view is more natural; and the reason which _Stier_ adduces
against it, viz., that of verbs [Hebrew: lh] no such forms are found,
cannot be considered as conclusive. [Hebrew: bzh-npw], literally the
"despised one of the _soul_" might, according to Ezek. xxxvi. 5:
"Against Edom who have taken my land into their possession with the joy
of all their heart, with the contempt of their soul," mean, "who is
inwardly and deeply despised," the soul being viewed as the seat of the
affections. But we are led to another explanation by the fundamental
passage, Ps. xxii. 7, and by the circumstance that [Hebrew: npw] is
_here_ parallel to [Hebrew: nvi], and that the latter corresponds to
the [Hebrew: eM] in Ps. xxii. "The despised one of the soul" must,
accordingly, be he who is despised of every one. The soul corresponding
to _man_ in Ps. xxii. is, as it were, conceived of as a great concrete
body. In a similar manner, "soul" is used for all that has a soul, in
Gen. xiv. 21, where the king of Sodom says to Abraham: "Give me the
_soul_, and take the goods to thyself."--"_To the abhorrence of the
people._" [Hebrew: teb] in _Piel_ never has another signification than
"to abhor." Such is the signification in Job ix. 31 also, where the
clothes abhor Job plunged in the dirt, resist being put on by him;
likewise in Ezek. xv. 25, where Judah abhors his beauty, disgracefully
tramples under feet his glory, as if he hated it. In favour of the
signification: "To cause to abhor" (_Roediger_: _horrorem incutiens
populo, qui abominationi est populo_), interpreters cannot adduce even
one apparent passage, except that before us. We are, therefore, only at
liberty to explain, after the example of _Kimchi_: "to the ... people
abhorring," _i.e._, to him against whom the [Pg 245] people feel an
abhorrence. [Hebrew: gvi] is used of the Jewish people in Is. i. 4
also. _Hofmann_ is of opinion that it ought to have the article, if it
were to refer to the Jewish people. But no one asserts a direct
reference to them; it designates, in itself, the mass only, in contrast
to single individuals, just as [Hebrew: eM] in Ps. xxii. The abhorrence
is felt by the masses--is popular. The fact that it is among Israel
that the Servant of God meets this general abhorrence, is not implied
in the word itself, but is suggested by the whole context. While
[Hebrew: npw] and [Hebrew: gvi] designate the generality of this
hatred, [Hebrew: mwliM] points to the highest places of it. Of heathen
rulers this word occurs in chap. xiv. 5; of native rulers, in chap.
lii. 5; xxviii. 14. The heathen rulers can here come into
consideration, in so far only as they are the instruments of the native
ones; comp. John xix. 10: [Greek: legei auto ho Pilatos. emoi ou
laleis; ouk oidas hoti exousian echo staurosai se kai exousian echo
apolusai se.] The _servant of rulers_ forms the contrast to the servant
of the Lord. But in the words: "Kings shall see," &c., it is described
how the original dignity finally breaks forth powerfully, and reacts
against the momentary humiliation. It was especially at the crucifixion
that Christ presented himself as "He that was despised by every one, as
the abhorrence of the people, as the servant of rulers." The historical
commentary on these words we have in Matt. xxii. 39 ff.: [Greek: hoi de
paraporeuomenoi eblasphemoun auton k.t.l. homoios de kai hoi archiereis
empaizontes meta ton grammateon kai presbuteron elegon. allous esosen
k.t.l. to d'auto kai hoi lestai hoi susaurothentes auto honeidizon
auton.]--After [Hebrew: irav] "they shall see," the object must be
supplied from ver. 6, viz., the brilliant turn which, under the Lord's
direction. His destiny shall take,--His being constituted the light and
salvation of the Gentiles. The kings who sit on their thrones rise up;
the nobles who stand around the throne prostrate themselves. The
Servant of God is the concentration of Israel, ver. 3. Hence His
glorification is, at the close, once more traced back to the _Holy One
of Israel_; and that so much the rather, because the glorification
which is bestowed upon Him is bestowed upon Him for the benefit of the
Congregation, whom He elevates along with himself out of the condition
of deep abasement; comp. vers. 8 and 9. The verse before us forms the
germ of that which, in chap. lii. 13, is carried out and expanded.

[Pg 246]

Ver. 8. "_Thus saith the Lord: In the time of favour have I heard thee,
and in the day of salvation have I helped thee; and I will preserve
thee, and give thee for the Covenant of the people, that thou mayest
raise up the land, divide desolate heritages._ Ver. 9. _That thou
mayest say to the prisoners: Go forth; to them that are in darkness:
Come to light; they shall feed in the ways, and on all bare hills shall
be their pasture._"

_The time of favour_ may be either the time when God shows His delight
in, and favour to His Servant, and, in Him, to the Church, _q. d._, of
delight in thee, mercy for thee,--in which case chap. lx. 10 would be
parallel: "In my _wrath_ I smote thee, and in my favour have I had
mercy on thee;" or, "in the time of favour," may be equivalent to: "at
the agreeable, acceptable time" (LXX., which Paul follows in 2 Cor. vi.
1, 2, [Greek: kairo dekto], Vulg. _tempore placito_); in contrast to a
preceding unacceptable time, in which the Lord seemed to have forsaken
His Servant, in which it appeared as if He had laboured in vain, and
spent His strength for nought and vanity. Acceptable is the time to all
parties, not only to the Servant of God, but also to those who are to
be redeemed through Him; and not less to God, to whom it is a joy to
pour out upon His Servant the rivers of His salvation. The Preterites
in ver. 8 must be viewed as prophetic Preterites. Concerning "Covenant
of the people," compare remarks on chap. xlii. 6. The idea of the
people is more closely defined and qualified by ver. 6 and 7. The souls
who have been cut off from their people, because they have broken the
covenant of the Lord, and despised His Servant, are justly passed by.
But since [Hebrew: eM] can here be understood of the better portion of
the people only, of the invisible Church in the midst of the visible,
the Servant of God cannot be the better portion of the people.--In the
words: "That thou mayest raise up the land, divide desolate heritages,"
the bestowal of salvation is described under the image of the
restoration of a devastated country. In ver. 9, the misery of the
Congregation of God is described under the image of pining away in a
dark prison; comp. remarks on chap. xlii. 7. With the second half of
the verse, there begins a more general description of the glorious
salvation which the Lord will giant to His people; and the person of
the Mediator [Pg 247] steps into the back-ground, in order afterwards
to come forth more prominently. The _ways_ and _bare hills_ have come
into consideration as places which, in themselves, are completely
barren, and which the wonderful grace of God can alone cause to bud and
flourish.




                            CHAPTER L. 4-11.


The Servant of God here also appears as speaking. In ver. 4, He
intimates His vocation: God has bestowed upon Him the gift of
comforting those who are weary and heavy laden. He then at once turns
to His real subject,--the sufferings which, in fulfilment of this
vocation he has to endure. The Lord has inwardly manifested to Him
that, in the exercise of His office. He shall experience severe trials;
and willingly has He borne all these sufferings, all the ignominy and
shame, ver. 5, 6. With this willingness and fortitude He is inspired by
His firm confidence in the Lord, who, he certainly knows, will help Him
and destroy His enemies, ver. 7-9. The conclusion, in ver. 10 and 11,
forms the prophetic announcement of the different fates of the two
opposing parties among the people. At the foundation of this lies the
foresight of heavy afflictions which, after the appearance of the
Servant of God, will be laid upon the covenant-people. That portion of
the people who are devoted to the Servant of God, are told to hope in
the midst of the misery, and may hope; their sorrows shall be turned
into joy. But the ungodly who, without regarding the Lord, and without
hearkening to His Servant, would help themselves, will bring
destruction upon themselves by their self-willed doings, and shall be
visited by the avenging hand of the Servant of God.

An intimation of the lowliness of Christ at His first appearance occurs
as early as in chap. xi. 1. In chap. xlii. 4, the words: "He shall not
fail nor run away," intimate that the Servant of God has to struggle
with great obstacles and difficulties in the exercise of His calling.
According to chap. xlix. 4, He will labour in vain among the great mass
of the covenant-people, [Pg 248] and spend his strength for nought and
vanity. In ver. 7, it is expressly intimated that severe sufferings
shall be inflicted upon Him by the people. That which was there alluded
to, is here _carried out and expanded_. But the suffering of the
Servant of God is here described from that aspect only which is common
to Christ with His members. It is first in chap. liii. that its
vicarious power is pointed out. The Servant of God comes here before us
in His deepest humiliation. Even in the description of His vocation in
ver. 4, the most unassuming aspect, the prophetic office only, is
brought forward. It is only quite at the close that a gentle intimation
is given of the glory concealed behind the lowliness: He there appears
as the judge of those who have rejected Him.

In the Messianic explanation of this Section, the Lord himself has gone
before His Church. We read in Luke xviii. 31, 32, [Greek: paralabon de
tous dodeka eipe pros autous. idou anabainomen eis hIerosoluma kai
telesthesetai panta ta gegrammena dia ton propheton to huio tou
anthropou. paradothesetai gar tois ethnesi kai empaichthesetai kai
hubristhesetai kai emptusthesetai kai mastigosantes apoktenousin
auton.] There cannot be any doubt that the Lord here distinctly refers
to ver. 6 of the prophecy under consideration. There is, at all events,
no other passage in the whole of the Old Testament, except that before
us, in which there is any mention made of being spat upon. But in other
respects, too, the reference is visible: "I gave my back to the smiters
( [Greek: mastigosantes], LXX. [Greek: eis mastigas]), and my cheeks to
those plucking ( [Greek: empaichthesetai]--the plucking of the beard,
an act of degrading wantonness), my face I hid not from shame ( [Greek:
hubristhesetai]) and spitting." _Bengel_ draws attention to the fact of
how highly Christ, in the passage quoted, placed the prophecy of the
Old Testament: "Jesus most highly valued that which was written. The
word of God which is contained in Scripture is the rule for all which
is to happen, even for that which is to happen in eternal life." If, in
respect of the high estimation of prophecy, our age were to follow in
the steps of Jesus, it would also most readily agree with Him as
regards the subject of the prophecy before us. This alone is the cause
of the aberration from Him, that people confined and shut up the
prophet within the horizon of his time, and then imagined that he could
not know anything of the suffering of Christ. It was altogether
different in the [Pg 249] ancient Christian Church. In it, the
Messianic interpretation prevailed throughout; and _Grotius_, who in a
lower sense would refer the prophecy to Isaiah, and, in a higher sense
only, to Christ, met with general opposition, even on the part of
_Clericus_.

In favour of the Messianic explanation there is the remarkable
agreement existing between prophecy and fulfilment, comp. Matt. xxvi.
67, 68: [Greek: Tote eneptusan eis to prosopon autou kai ekolaphisan
auton. hOi de erhrapisan legontes. propheteuson hemin, christe, tis
estin ho paisas se]; xxvii. 30: [Greek: kai emptusantes eis auton
elabon ton kalamon kai etupton eis ten kephalen autou],--an agreement,
the significance and importance of which are only enhanced by the
circumstance that one of the most individualizing features of the
prophecy, viz., the plucking off of the beard, is not met with in the
history of Christ; for it is just thereby that this agreement is proved
to be a free and spontaneous one. _Farther_--The exactness with which,
in ver. 10 and 11, the destinies of Israel, after the rejection of
Christ, are drawn; and the destruction which the mass of the people,
who did not believe in the Servant of God, prepared for themselves, by
their attempts to help themselves by their own strength, by enkindling
the flame of war, whilst those who fear the Lord and listen to the
voice of Hs Servant, obtain salvation. _Farther_--Ver. 11, where the
Servant of God ascribes to himself the judgment upon the unbelieving
mass of the people: "From _my_ hand is this to you," in harmony with
Matt. xxvi. 64 and other passages, where the Son of Man appears as
executing judgment upon Jerusalem. _Finally_--The parallel passages.

Most of the modern interpreters assume that the Prophet himself,
Isaiah, or Pseudo-Isaiah, is the subject of the prophecy. _Jerome_
mentions that this explanation was the prevailing one among the Jews of
his time. The explanation which refers it to the better portion of the
people, found only one defender, viz., _Paulus_. The explanation which
refers it to the _whole_ of the Jewish people, or to the collective
body of the prophets, has been entirely abandoned, although it is
maintained in reference to the parallel passages.

Since it is undeniable that this Section is related to the other
prophecies which treat of the Servant of God,--and hence an identity of
subject is necessarily required--those who, in the [Pg 250] Section
under consideration, are compelled to give up their former hypothesis,
themselves bear witness against the correctness of it, at the same
time, also against the soundness of their explanation of the passage
before us. For an explanation which compels to the severance of what is
necessarily connected, cannot be right and true. It is only then that
Exegesis has attained its object, when it has arrived at a subject in
whom all those features, which occur in the single prophecies which are
connected with each other, are found at the same time. _Knobel_, in
saying: "This small unconnected Section, is the only one in the whole
collection, in which the Prophet speaks of himself only, and represents
his suffering's and hopes," has thereby himself pronounced judgment
upon his own interpretation of this Section, and at the same time, of
the other prophecies of the Servant of God.

Moreover, the Prophet would here form rather a strange figure; he would
appear as it were, as if he had been blown in by a snow-storm.
According to _Hofmann_, he describes how he is rewarded for his
activity and zeal in his vocation. But how does this suit the contents
of the second part, which evidently is a whole, the single parts of
which must stand in a close relation to its fundamental idea! _It is
only a person of central importance that is suitable to this context._
It is only when we refer it to Christ, that the expectations are
satisfied which were called forth by the words: Comfort ye, comfort ye
my people. This call is answered only by pointing to the future Saviour
of the world.

One element of truth, indeed, there is in the explanation which makes
the Prophet the subject. It is revealed to him, indeed, that the
Servant of God shall undergo persecution, shame, and ignominy; but he
has the natural substratum for this knowledge in the experience of
himself and his colleagues, comp. Matt. xxiii. 29-37; Heb. xi. 36, 37.
The divine, wherever it enters into the world of sin, as well as the
servant of truth who upholds it in the face of prevailing falsehood,
must undergo struggles, shame, and ignominy. This truth was confirmed
in the case of the prophets as types, in the case of Christ as the
antitype. All that which the prophets had to experience in their own
cases was a prophecy by deeds of the sufferings of Christ; and we
should the less have any difficulty [Pg 251] in admitting their
knowledge of this, that it would be rather strange if they were
destitute of such knowledge.

Ver. 4. "_The Lord Jehovah hath given me a disciples tongue, that I
should know to help the weary with a word: He awakeneth morning by
morning, wakeneth mine ear, that I may hear as the disciples._"

The greater number of expositors explain a disciple's tongue by: "A
tongue such as instructed people or scholars possess,--an eloquent
tongue." But [Hebrew: lmd], everywhere else in Isaiah, means "pupil,"
"disciple," and is used especially of the disciples of the Lord, those
who go to His school, are instructed by Him; comp. chaps. viii. 16;
liv. 13. A disciple's tongue is such as the disciples of the Lord
possess. Its foundation is formed by the disciple's _ear_ mentioned at
the close of the verse. He who hears the Lord's words, speaks also the
Lord's words. The signification, "learned," is not suitable in the last
clause of the verse, and its reference to the first does not permit of
our assuming a different signification in either clause. Just as here
the Servant of God traces back to God that which He speaks, so Jesus
says, in John viii. 26: [Greek: kago ha ekousa par'autou tauta lalo
eis ton kosmon], comp. iii. 34: [Greek: hon gar apesteilen ho theos ta
rhemata tou theou lalei.] The verb [Hebrew: smK], which occurs only
here, means, according to the Arabic, "to help," "to support;"
_Aquila_: [Greek: huposterisai], Vulg. _sustentare_. Like other similar
verbs, _e.g._, [Hebrew: smK], in Gen. xxvii. 37, it is construed with a
double accusative: "that I may help the weary, word," _i.e._, may
support him by comforting words. The weary or fatigued are, like the
bent reed, the faintly burning wick, in chap. xlii. 3; the blind, the
prisoners sitting in darkness, _ibid._, ver. 7; the broken-hearted,
chap. lxi. 1; them that mourn, _ibid._, ver. 2. Just as here the
Servant of God represents the suffering and afflicted ones as the main
objects of His mission, so Christ announces, that His mission is
specially directed to these, comp. _e.g._, Matt. v. 4; xi. 28. In order
to be able to fulfil this mission. He must be able to draw from the
fulness of God, who looketh to him that is poor and of a contrite
spirit, chap. lxvi. 2, and who alone understands to heal the broken in
heart, and to bind up their wounds, Ps. cxlvii. 3.--In the words: "He
wakeneth, &c." we are told in what manner the Lord gives to His Servant
the disciple's tongue. _To waken_ [Pg 252] _the ear_ is equivalent to:
to make attentive, to make ready for the reception of the divine
communications. The expression "morning by morning" indicates that the
divine wakening is going on uninterruptedly, and that the Servant of
God unreservedly surrenders himself to the influences which come from
above, in which He has become an example to us.

Ver. 5. "_The Lord Jehovah hath opened mine ear, and I was not
rebellious, and have not turned back._"

The phrases "to open or uncover the ear" have always the signification,
"to make known something to some one," "to reveal to him something."
"to inform him," both in ordinary circumstances (comp. 1 Sam. xx. 12;
Ruth iv. 4), and on the religious territory, comp. 2 Sam. vii. 27: "For
thou, Lord of Hosts, God of Israel, hast opened the ear of thy servant,
saying: I will build thee an house;" Isa. xlviii. 8: "Thou heardest
not, thou knewest not, nor was formerly thine ear opened;" chap. xlii.
20: "The ear was opened to him." According to this well established
_usus loquendi_, "The Lord hath opened mine ear," can only mean: The
Lord hath revealed to me, hath informed me inwardly; _Abenezra_:
[Hebrew: glh svdv li] "He has made known to me His secret." What the
Lord has made known to His Servant, we are not here expressly told; but
it may be inferred from ver. 6, where the Servant declares that which,
in consequence of the divine manifestation, He did, viz., that He
should give His back to the smiters, &c. The words: "The Lord hath
opened mine ear" here are connected with: "The Lord wakeneth mine ear,
that I may hear," in the preceding verse: The Lord has specially made
known to me that, in carrying out my vocation, I shall have to endure
severe sufferings. _To this subject the Servant of God quickly passes
over, after having, in the introduction, described, by a few features,
the vocation, in the carrying out of which these sufferings should
befal Him._ As the authors of these sufferings, we must conceive of the
party opposed to the weary, viz., the proud, secure, unbroken sinners.
On "I was not rebellious," compare what, in Deut. xxi. 20, is written
of the stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his
father; and farther, the words: [Greek: plen ouch hos ego thelo all'hos
su], Matt. xxvi. 39.

[Pg 253]

Ver. 6. "_I gave my back to the smiters, and my cheeks to the pluckers,
I hid not my face from shame and spitting._"

The words express in an individualizing manner the thought, that the
Servant of God, in His vocation as the Saviour of the _personae
miserabiles_, would experience the most shameful and ignominious
treatment, and would patiently bear it. In God's providence, part of
the contents was literally fulfilled upon Christ. But the fact that
this literal agreement is not the main point, but that it serves as a
hint and indication only of the far more important _substantial_
conformity which would take place, although the hatred of the world
against the Saviour of the poor and afflicted should have manifested
itself in forms altogether different,--this fact is evident from the
circumstance that regarding the fulfilment of the words: "and my cheeks
to the pluckers"--plucking the cheeks, or plucking off of the beard
being the greatest insult and disgrace in the East, comp. 2 Sam. x.
4--there is no mention in the New Testament history.

In vers. 7-9 we have the future glory, which makes it easy for the
Servant of God to bear the sufferings of the Present. If God be for
Him, who may be against Him?

Ver. 7. "_But the Lord Jehovah helpeth me, therefore I am not
confounded, therefore I make my face like a flint, and I know that I am
not put to shame._"

[Hebrew: nklmti] refers to [Hebrew: klmvt] in the preceding verse. He
whom the Lord helps is not confounded or put to shame by all the
ignominy which the world heaps upon him. The expression: "I make my
face like a flint" denotes the "holy hardness of perseverance"
(_Stier_); comp. Ezek. iii. 8. In that passage it is especially the
assailing hardness which comes into consideration; here, on the
contrary, it is the suffering one. There is an allusion to the passage
before us, in Luke ix. 51: [Greek: egeneto de to sumplerousthai tas
hemeras tes analepseos autou, kai autos to prosopon autou esterixe tou
poreuesthai eis hIerousalem.]

Ver. 8. "_He is near that justifieth me; who will contend with one? Let
us stand together; who has a right upon me, let him come near me._"

In the confidence and assurance of Christ, His redeemed ones, too,
partake,--those that hear the voice of the Servant of God, ver. 10,
comp. Rom. viii. 33, 34, where this and the [Pg 254] following verse
are intentionally alluded to. The justification is one by _deeds_. It
took place and was fulfilled, in the first instance, in the
resurrection and glorification of Christ, and, then, in the destruction
of Jerusalem.--[Hebrew: bel mwpTi] literally, "the master of my right,"
_i.e._, he who according to his opinion or assertion which, by the
issue is proved to be false, has a right over me, comp. the [Greek:
en emoi ouk echei ouden] which, in John xiv. 30, the Lord says in
reference to the chief of His enemies.

Ver. 9. "_Behold the Lord Jehovah will help me; who is he that shall
condemn me? Lo, they shall wax old as a garment, the moth shall eat
them._"

That which is said herein reference to the enemies of Christ is, in
chap. li. 8, with a reference to our passage, said of the opponents of
those who know righteousness, and in whose heart is the law: "The moth
shall eat them up like a garment." Enmity to Christ and His Church is,
to those who entertain it, a prophecy of sure destruction. The words:
"The moth shall eat them," are farther expanded in ver. 11, where it is
described how the people who ventured to _condemn_ the Servant of God,
become a prey to destruction.

The Servant of God closes with a double address; first, to the godly;
and then, to the ungodly.

Ver. 10. "_Who is among you that feareth the Lord, that obeyeth the
word of His Servant? When he walketh in darkness, in which there is no
light to him, let him trust in the name of the Lord, and stay upon his
God._"

From the words: "Of mine hand," in ver. 11, it appears that the Servant
of God is continuing the discourse. Hence "the voice of His Servant,"
_q.d._, the voice of me who am His Servant. By the words: "Among you,"
the address is directed to the whole of the people. In this two parties
are distinguished. The first is formed by those who fear the Lord, and
obey the voice of His Servant. Both of these things appear as
indissolubly connected. The fear of God must necessarily prove itself
in this, that He whom He has sent is obeyed. It is a mere imagination
on the part of the people to think that they can fear God without
obeying the voice of His Servant; comp. John v. 23. There is in this an
allusion to the emphatic "Unto him ye shall hearken," which, in Deut.
xviii. 15, had been said in reference to _the_ Prophet. [Pg 255] From
ver. 11 it appears that the darkness in which those walk who fear the
Lord, is not to be understood of personal individual calamity which
befals this or that godly one, nor of the sufferings which happen to
the pious godly _party_, in contrast to the ungodly wicked, but rather
that we have before us the foresight of a dark period of sufferings
which, after the appearance of the Servant of God, shall be inflicted
upon the whole people; so that both of the parties,--that devoted to
the Servant of God, and that opposed to Him,--are thereby affected, but
with a different issue. For in ver. 11, it is described how the
ungodly, who likewise walk in darkness, endeavour to light up their
darkness by a fire which they have kindled, but do so to their own
destruction. Behind the exhortation: "Let him trust in the name of the
Lord, and stay upon his God," there is concealed the promise: he _may_
trust, his darkness shall be changed into light, his sorrow into joy.
When the destruction of Jerusalem approached, the cry came to believing
Israel: "Lift up your heads, for your redemption draweth nigh," Luke
xxi. 28. In the destruction of apostate Israel, not obeying the Servant
of God, but persecuting His faithful ones, they beheld the beginning of
the victory of the true people of God over the world.

Ver. 11. "_Behold all ye that kindle a fire, that gird sparks,--walk in
the light of your fire, and in the sparks that ye have kindled. From
mine hand is this to you; ye shall lie down in pain._"

The image begun in the preceding verse is continued. The pious walk in
confidence and patience through the lightless darkness, until the Lord
kindles a light to them. Those who do not hear the Lord, who do _not_
obey the voice of His Servant, kindle a fire which is to light up their
darkness; but instead of that, they are consumed by the fire. Thus the
Servant of God, who brings this destruction upon them, obtains His
right upon them.--The _fire_ is often in Scripture the fire of war,
chap. ix. 18; Jer. li. 5; Rev. viii. 7-10. According to several
interpreters (_Hitzig_, _Ewald_, _Knobel_), it is assumed that the
discourse is here not of "self-assistance by rebellion," but "of the
attacks of the wicked upon the godly, and of the destruction, into
which these attacks turn out for their authors." But this view is
opposed by the circumstance that the darkness [Pg 256] is common to
both parties; hence, it must come from some other quarter. The fire
which the wicked kindle is destined to enlighten the darkness in which
they also are, which is especially evident from the words: "Walk in the
_light_ of your fire." They now have a light which enlightens their
darkness; but this self-created light consumes them.--To _gird_ stands
for, "to surround one's self with a girdle," "to put on a girdle." In
substance it is equivalent "to provide one's self with it."--The
[Greek: hapax legomenon] [Hebrew: ziqvt] cannot with certainty be
explained from the dialects. The connection and parallelism are in
favour of the signification "sparks," "flames," which is found as early
as in the Septuagint ( [Greek: phloga]), and Vulg. (_flammas_). In
Syriac [Hebrew: ziqa] has the signification "lightning." Those who
explain it by "fiery darts" are not at liberty to refer it to the
[Hebrew: zqiM] in Prov. xxvi. 18. The signification "flames" (not
"sparks," as _Stier_ holds), is, in that passage, quite suitable;
simple arrows could there not be mentioned after the fiery darts
without making the discourse feeble.--[Hebrew: lki] "walk ye," is
equivalent to: "ye shall walk," yet with an intimation of the fact that
this result, as we are immediately afterwards expressly told, proceeds
from the speaker: _sic volo, sic jubeo._ The words: "From mine hand is
this to you," are, by those who make the Prophet the subject of this
prediction, supposed to be spoken by Jehovah. But throughout the whole
section, the Lord is always only spoken of, and never appears as
speaking. The words are in harmony with the exalted dignity which,
elsewhere also, is attributed by the Prophet to the Servant of God who
plants the heavens, and lays the foundation of the earth, chap. li. 16;
whose mouth the Lord makes like a sharp sword, chap. xlix. 2; who is
the personal salvation, the Saviour for the whole earth, chap. xlix. 6;
and the embodied Covenant for the covenant-people, chaps. xlii. 6;
xlix. 8. The last passages, especially, are of no small importance. The
saving and judging activity go hand in hand, and cannot be separated.
We have here thus the Old Testament beginnings and preparation for the
doctrine of the New Testament, that the Father has given all judgment
to the Son, The Servant of God, in the highest sense, is Lord and judge
of the fellow servants.--The [Hebrew: l] in [Hebrew: lmecbh] serves for
designating the condition: so that you belong to pain, [Hebrew: wkb]
occurs in [Pg 257] chap. xliii. 17 of the Egyptians lying down; comp.
Ps. xli. 9: "He that _lieth_ shall rise up no more." In the
announcement that Israel's attempt to help themselves would turn out to
their destruction, the Song of Solomon, in chap. iii. 1-3; v. 7, has
preceded our Prophet: "The daughter of Zion, in her restlessness,
endeavours to bring about, by worldly, rebellious doings, the Messianic
salvation. It is in vain; what she is seeking she does not find, but
the heavenly watchmen find her."




                            CHAPTER LI. 1-16.


Ver. 1. "_And I put my words in thy mouth, and cover thee in the shadow
of mine hand, that thou mayest plant the heaven and lay the foundation
of the earth, and say unto Zion: Thou art my people._"

The discourse in chap. li. to lii. 12 is not addressed to the whole of
Israel, but to the _election_. They are, in chap. li. 1, called those
that follow after righteousness, that seek the Lord; in ver. 7, those
who know righteousness, in whose heart is the law of the Lord. These
the Prophet seeks to comfort and strengthen by pointing to the future
glorious mercies of the Lord.

The Section chap. li. 4-8 comforts the elect by the coming of the
salvation, by the dominion of the people of God over the whole world;
points to the foundation of these successes, viz., the eternity of the
salvation and righteousness for the Church; and exhorts them that,
having this eternal salvation before them, they might patiently bear
the temporal reproach of the world given over to destruction.

In vers. 9-11, the Church calls upon the Lord to do as He had promised;
and this prayer, founded upon His almighty love, which in times past
had so gloriously manifested itself, passes over, at the close, into
hope and confidence.

In vers. 12-16 follows the answer of the Lord, who exhorts the Church
to be stedfast, by reminding her that her opponents are weak mortals,
while the omnipotent God is her protector; and announces that, with the
same omnipotence which He manifests in nature, He would soon bring
about her deliverance, [Pg 258] and that Ho would do so by His Servant,
in whom all His promises should be Yea and Amen, and whom at the close
Ho addresses, committing to Him the work of redemption. According to
the current opinion, the discourse in ver. 16 is addressed to the
people. But, in that case, we must also make up our minds to view the
Infinitive with [Hebrew: l] a Gerund, "planting," or "by planting,"--a
supposition which is beset with great difficulties. It was only by an
inconsistency that _Stier_, who, in chap. xlix. rejects this view,
could here agree to it. And, farther, it is obvious that the words at
the close: "Thou art my people," are the _words_ which, according to
the commencement of the verse, are put into the mouth of the speaker,
and that hence, the planting of heaven and earth, which prepares for
this speaking, belongs to Him. If this be not supposed, one does not at
all see to what the: "I put my words in thy mouth," is to refer. What
farther militates against this explanation is the unmistakable relation
of the passage before us to chaps. xlix., l., which it is impossible to
refer to the people. The same reason is also against the supposition of
_Gesenius_ and _Umbreit_, that the discourse is addressed to the
prophetical order. Nor is it defensible to explain: "to plant the
heaven and lay the foundation of the earth," by: to establish the new
state of Israel. To these arguments it may be added that, according to
this explanation, the words: "Thou art my people," are unsuitable; for
Israel was not the people of the Prophet, but the people of God and of
His Servant. The discourse is addressed rather to the Messiah, compare
the parallel passages, chap. xlix., especially ver. 2, and chap. l.,
especially vers. 4 and 5. Considering the dramatic character of the
whole section, the change of the person addressed is a circumstance of
very little importance; and chap. lix. 21, where the word of God is put
into the mouth of Jacob, is parallel in appearance only. Even _a
priori_ we could not expect that, in this context, treating, as it
does, of the personal Messiah, the whole section, chap. li. 1 to lii.
12, should lack all reference to the Messiah. By the words: "I put my
word in thy mouth," the Messiah is appointed to be, in the highest
sense, the speaker of God; the realization of the divine counsels is
committed to Him. For the fact that it is not mere words which are here
treated of, but such as are living [Pg 259] and powerful, like those
which God spoke at the creation, becomes evident by the circumstance
that the planting of heaven and earth is attributed to the Servant of
God as bearer of His words,--a thing which cannot be done by the
ordinary word; comp. Isa. xl. 4, according to which the Messiah smites
the earth with the rod of His mouth, and slays the wicked with the
breath of His lips.--_I cover thee in the shadow of mine hand_,
designates the divine protection and providence which are indispensable
in order that the Servant of God may fulfil His vocation to be God's
speaker. The words form an accessory thought only: I appoint thee my
speaker whom, as such, I will keep and protect in order that thou,
etc.;--for that which follows is that which the Servant of God is to
_perform_ as His Speaker. By the word of Omnipotence committed to Him,
He plants a new heaven, and lays the foundation of a new earth, and
invests Zion with the dignity of the people of God.--To plant the
heaven and lay the foundation of the earth, is equivalent to founding a
_new_ heaven, a _new_ earth; comp. chaps. lxv. 17, lxvi. 22; Rev. xxii.
For, as long as the old heaven and the old earth exist, a planting and
founding activity cannot take place in reference to heaven and earth.
All that is created, in so far as it opposes the Kingdom of God, is
unfit for being an abode of the glorified Kingdom of God, and must be
shaken and broken to pieces, in order that this Kingdom may enter into
its natural conditions, and find a worthy abode. The activity of God
and His Servant, necessary for this purpose, will most completely take
place at the end of days, at the [Greek: palingenesia] announced by the
Lord, Matt. xix. 28; compare what is said in chap. xi., in reference to
the entire change of the conditions of the earth. But in a preparatory
manner, this activity pervades all history. The heaven, according to
the _usus loquendi_ of Scripture, and also of Isaiah, is not only the
natural heaven, but also the heaven of princes, the whole order of
rulers and magistrates, (comp. my remarks on Rev. vi. 13), whose form
and relation to the Kingdom of God underwent a great change, even at
the first appearance of Christ.--The _saying_, according to the
preceding: That thou mayest plant, &c., is not to be referred to the
mere announcing; but, according to the frequent _usus loquendi_, it
includes the performing also, just as _e.g._, in ver. 12, the [Pg 260]
comforting is effected by a discourse _in deeds_. The distinction
between, and separation of word and deed belongs to human weakness. God
speaks and it is done; and what holds true of His word, applies also to
the word of His Servant, which he has put into His mouth.




                       CHAPTERS LII. 13-LIII. 12.


This section forms the climax of the prophecies of Isaiah, of
prophetism in general, of the whole Old Testament, as appears even from
the circumstance that the Lord and His Apostles refer to no part of the
Old Testament so frequently and so emphatically as to this,--a section
which, according to _Luther's_ demand, every Christian should have
committed _verbatim_. Christ is here, with wonderful clearness,
described to us in His highest work--His atoning suffering.

In vers. 13-15 of chap. lii. Jehovah speaks. These verses contain a
short summary of what is enlarged upon in chap. liii. The very deepest
humiliation of the Servant of God shall be followed by His highest
glorification. In consequence of the salvation wrought out and
accomplished by Him, the nations of the earth and their kings shall
reverently submit to Him. In chap. liii. 1-10, the Prophet utters the
sentiments of the _elect_ in Israel. At first, in His humiliation, they
had not recognized the Redeemer; but now they acknowledged Him as their
Redeemer and Saviour, and saw that He had taken upon Him His sufferings
for our salvation, and that they had a vicarious character. The
commencement forms, in ver. 1, the lamentation that so many do not
believe in the report of the Servant of God, that so many do not behold
the glory of God manifested in Him. In vers. 2 and 3, we have the cause
of this fact, viz., the appearance of the Divine, in the form of a
Servant--the offence of the cross. In lowliness, without any outward
splendour, the Servant of God shall go about. Sufferings, heavier than
ever befel any man, shall be inflicted upon Him. In vers. 4-6, the
vicarious import of these sufferings is pointed out. The people, seeing
his sufferings, [Pg 261] and not knowing the cause of them, imagined
that they were the well-merited punishment of His own transgressions
and iniquities. But the Church, now brought to believe in Him, see that
they were wrong in imagining thus. It was not His own transgressions
and iniquities which were punished in Him, but ours. His sufferings
were voluntarily undergone by Him, and for the salvation of mankind,
which else would have been given up to destruction. God himself was
anxious to re-unite to himself those who were separated from Him, and
who walked in their own ways. To the vicarious import of the sufferings
of the Servant of God corresponds, according to ver. 7, His conduct: He
suffers quietly and patiently. In vers. 8-10 we have the reward which
the Servant of God receives for His passive obedience. God takes Him to
himself, and He receives an unspeakably great generation, ver. 8, the
ominous burial with the rich, ver. 9, numerous seed and long life, and
that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper in His hand; ver. 10. In
vers. 11 and 12, the Lord again appears as speaking, and confirms that
which has been declared by the faithful Church.

The two verses of the close, together with the exordium, chap. lii.
13-15, occupy five verses--five being the signature of the half and
incomplete. The main body, ten verses, is divided into seven referring
to the humiliation and suffering, and three referring to the exaltation
of the Servant of God. The seven are, as usual, divided into three and
four. In the three verses, the suffering of the Servant of God is
exhibited; in the four, its cause and vicarious import.

By the "_Behold_," with which the prophecy opens, the Prophet intimates
that we have here before us a vision beheld by him in the spirit. As
the period in which the Prophet beholds the vision, we have to suppose
the time between the suffering and the glorification of the Servant of
God. The glorification is described chiefly by Futures, the suffering
by Preterites; but, from the fact that this stand-point is not strictly
adhered to, it is evident that we have to do with a stand-point which
is purely ideal.

The section forms, in a formal and material point of view, a whole by
itself; but, notwithstanding its absolute independence, it must stand
in a certain connection with what precedes and what follows. Let us,
therefore, now consider the relation [Pg 262] in which it stands to the
portions surrounding it. Its relation to what goes before is thus
strikingly designated by _Calvin_: "After Isaiah had spoken of the
restoration of the Church, he passes over to Christ, in whom all things
are gathered together. He speaks of the prosperous success of the
Church, at a time when it was least to be expected, which calls them
back to their King, by whom all things are to be restored, and exhorts
them to expect Him." The preceding section begins with chap. li. 1. We
have already stated the contents up to li. 16. Vers. 17-23 are closely
connected with the preceding, in which salvation and mercy were
announced to the Church of God. This announcement is here continued in
new forms. Chap. lii. 1-6: As the Lord had formerly delivered His
people out of the hand of Egypt and Asshur, so, now too, He will
deliver them. Zion appears under the image of a woman imprisoned,
fettered, lying powerlessly in a miserable garment, on a dirty floor,
and is called upon to arise, to strengthen herself, to throw off her
bands, to put on festive garments, inasmuch as the time of her
deliverance from the misery is at hand. Vers. 7-10: In the last words
of ver. 6, the Lord had announced that He was already at hand for the
redemption of His Church. This salvation now presents itself vividly to
the spiritual eye of the Prophet, and is graphically described by him.
He beholds a messenger hastening with the glad tidings to Jerusalem;
_watchmen_, who are standing on the ruins of Jerusalem in longing
expectation, discover him at a distance, and exultingly call upon
the ruins to shout aloud for joy.[1] "How beautiful"--so verse 7
runs--"upon the mountains the feet of the Messenger of joy, that
announceth peace, that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth
salvation, that saith unto Zion: Thy God reigneth." In Rom. x. 15, the
Apostle refers this passage to the preaching of the Gospel. That is
more than mere application; it is real explanation. The deliverance
from Babylon is only the first faint beginning of the salvation, which
the Prophet has before his eye in its [Pg 263] whole extent. As the
substance of the salvation, the circumstance that Zion's God reigneth,
is intimated. There is, in this, an allusion to the formula which was
used in proclaiming the ascension of earthly kings to the throne. Even
this allusion shows that the point here in question is not the
continuous government of the Lord, but a new, glorious manifestation of
His government, as it were a new ascension to the throne. This "the
Lord reigneth," found a faint beginning only of its confirmation and
fulfilment in the destruction of Babylon, and the deliverance of
Israel; but as to its full import, it is Messianic. In Christ, the Lord
has truly assumed the government, and will still more gloriously reign
in future.--Ver. 8: "The _voice_ of thy watchmen! they lift up the
voice, they shout together; for they see eye to eye that the Lord
returneth to Zion." The watchmen are ideal persons, representatives of
the truth that the Lord is around His people, and that the
circumstances of His Church are to Him a constant call to help; or they
may be viewed as the holy angels who, as the servants of the watchmen
of Israel, form the protecting power for the Church. These watchmen
continue to stand even on the destroyed walls; for, even in her misery,
the Lord is Zion's God. The anxious waiting eye of the watchmen, and
the mercy-beaming eye of God returning to Zion meet one another. The
returning here is opposed to the forsaking, over which Zion had
lamented in chap. xlix. 14. Instead of the concealed presence of the
Lord during the misery, which, to the feeling, so easily appears as
entire absence, there comes the presence of God manifested in the
salvation. This return of the Lord to Zion truly took place in Christ
only, Luke i. 68.--Ver. 9: "Break forth into joy, shout together, ye
ruins of Jerusalem, for the Lord comforteth Jerusalem, redeemeth His
people." This call goes far beyond the time of the restoration of
Jerusalem after the exile; for, even at that time, the spiritual eye
still beheld ruins, where the bodily eye saw firm, walled buildings.
The condition of the Kingdom of God was still miserable, the eye
of the faithful remained still fixed, with hopes and longings, upon the
Future which was to bring, and has brought, _true_ comfort and
consolation.--Ver. 10: "The Lord maketh bare His Holy arm in the eyes
of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth see the salvation of
our God." The making bare of the arm of the Lord designates the
manifestation, by deeds, of [Pg 264] the divine power and glory, such
as took place by the sending of Christ, and by the wonderful elevation
of the Church over the world,--an elevation which has it roots in Him;
comp. chap. liii. 1. In vers. 11 and 12 there is still the exhortation
to the Church of the Lord that, by true repentance, she should worthily
prepare for the impending salvation.

After the Prophet has, in chap. li. 1 to lii. 12, described the
transition of the Church of God from humiliation and sorrow to
glorification, it is quite natural that he should now turn from the
members to the Head, through whose mediation this transition was to be
accomplished, after the same contrast had been exhibited in Himself
There is the most intimate connection between the Church of God and His
Servant; for, all that He does and suffers. He does and suffers for
her; and all that befals her is prefigured by the way in which He has
been led by the Lord.

With what follows, too, the section before us stands in a close
relation. The glorification of the Servant of God described at the
close of chap. liii., is, in Him, bestowed at the same time, upon the
Church. Thus chap. liv., in which the Church is comforted by pointing
to her future glorification, is connected with the preceding. The
Church of the Lord appears here as a woman who, after having been put
away by her husband, and after having, for a long time, lived in a
childless, sorrowful solitude, is again received by him, and sees
herself surrounded by numerous children. The time of punishment is now
at an end, and the time of mercy is breaking.

Chap. lii. 13. "_Behold, my Servant shall act wisely, He shall be
exalted and extolled, and be very high._"

[Hebrew: hwkil] always means "to act wisely" (LXX. [Greek: sunesei];
_Aquil. Sym._: [Greek: episthemonisthesetai]), never "to be successful"
(the Chaldean, whom most of the modern interpreters follow, renders it
by [Hebrew: iclH]), and this ascertained sense (comp. Remarks on Jer.
iii. 15; xxiii. 5, where the verb is used of the Messiah, just as it is
here), must here be maintained so much the more, that our passage
evidently refers to David, the former servant of God. Of him it is said
in 1 Sam. xviii. 14, 15: "And David was acting wisely in all his ways,
and the Lord was with him. And Saul saw that he was acting very wisely,
and was afraid of him;" comp. 1 Kings ii. 3, where David says to
Solomon: "And keep the charge of the Lord thy God ... in order [Pg 265]
that thou mayest act wisely in all that thou doest, and whithersoever
thou turnest thyself;" Ps. ci. 2, where David, speaking in the name of
his family, says: "I will behave myself wisely in a perfect way;" and 2
Kings xviii. 7, where it is said of Hezekiah: "And the Lord was with
him, and whithersoever he went forth, he acted wisely." According to
these fundamental and parallel passages, the expression, "He shall act
wisely" refers to the administration of government, and is equivalent
to: He shall rule wisely like his ancestor David. _Stier_ is wrong in
opposing the view, that the Messiah here presents himself as King. He
says: "The King has here stepped behind the Prophet, Witness, Martyr,
Saviour;" but in chap. liii. 12, the royal office surely comes out with
sufficient distinctness. We must never forget that the different
offices of Christ are intimately connected with one another by the
unity of the person. The _prosperity and success_ which the Servant of
God enjoys, are first brought before us and detailed in what follows;
and appear, just as in the fundamental passages quoted, as the
consequence of acting wisely: "My Servant shall, after having, through
the deepest humiliation, attained to dominion, administer it well, and
thereby attain to the highest glory." To the words: "He shall act
wisely" correspond, afterwards, the words: "The pleasure of the Lord
shall prosper by His hand," chap. liii. 10. The fact that a person acts
wisely is, in a twofold aspect, a fruit of his connection with God:
_first_, because God is the source and fountain of all wisdom, and,
_secondly_, because from God the blessing proceeds which always
accompanies his doings. The ungodly is by God involved in circumstances
which, notwithstanding all his wisdom, make him appear as a fool.
Compare only chap. xix. 11: "The princes of Zoan become fools, the
counsel of the wise counsellors of Pharaoh is become brutish; how can
ye say unto Pharaoh: a son of the wise am I, a (spiritual) son of the
(wise) kings of ancient times?" comp. ver. 13; Job xii. 17, 20; Eccles.
ix. 11. In the second clause the Prophet puts together the verbs which
denote elevation, and still adds [Hebrew: mad] "very" in order most
emphatically to point out the glory of the exaltation of the Servant of
God.

Ver. 14. "_As many were shocked at thee--so marred from man was His
look, and His form from the sons of man_--Ver. 15. _So shall He
sprinkle many nations; kings shall shut their_ [Pg 266] _mouths on
account of Him, for they who had not been told, they see, and they who
did not hear, they perceive._"

Ver. 14 contains the _protasis_, ver. 15 the _apodosis_. The former
describes the deep humiliation, the latter the highest glorification of
the Servant of God. The _so_ in ver. 14 begins a parenthesis, in which
the reason why many were shocked is stated, and which goes on to the
end of the verse. In keeping with the dramatic character of the
prophetic discourse, the Lord addresses His Servant in ver. 14: "At
thee;" while, in ver. 15, He speaks of Him in the third person: "He
shall sprinkle;" "on account of _Him_" This change has been occasioned
by the parenthetical clause which contains a remark of the Prophet, and
in which, therefore, the Servant of God could not but be spoken of in
the third person. _Haevernick_ and _Stier_ refuse to admit the existence
of a parenthesis. Their reasons: "Parentheses are commonly an
ill-invented expedient only," and: "It is not likely that the same
particle should have a different signification in these two clauses
following immediately the one upon the other," are not entirely
destitute of force, but are far-outweighed by counter-arguments. They
say that the _apodosis_ begins with the first [Hebrew: kN], and that in
ver. 15 a second _apodosis_ follows. But no tolerable thought comes out
in this way;--it is hard to co-ordinate two _apodoses_,--and the
transition from the 2d to the 3d person remains unaccounted for.
[Hebrew: wmM] "to be desolated" is then transferred to the spiritual
desolation and devastation, and receives the signification "to be
horrified," "to be shocked."--Who the many are that are shocked and
offended at the miserable appearance of the Servant of God, appears
from chap. xlix. 4, according to which the opposition to the Servant of
God has its seat among the covenant people; farther, from the contrast
in ver. 15 of the chapter before us, according to which the respectful
surrender belongs to the _Gentiles_; and farther, from chap. liii. 1,
where the unbelief of the former covenant-people is complained of; from
vers. 2-4, where even the believers from among Israel complain that
they had had difficulty in surmounting the offence of the Cross.
[Hebrew: mwHt], properly "corruption," stands here as _abstractum pro
concreto_, in the signification, "corrupted," "marred." As to its form,
it is in the _status constructus_ which, in close connections, can
stand even [Pg 267] before Prepositions. From the corresponding
[Hebrew: Hdl aiwiM] in chap. liii. 3, it appears that the Preposition
stands here only for the sake of distinctness, and might as well have
been omitted. The [Hebrew: mN] serves for designating the distance,
"from man," "from the sons of men," so that He is no more a man, does
no more belong to the number of the sons of men. The correctness of
this explanation appears from chap. liii. 3, and Ps. xxii. 7: "I am a
worm and no man." As regards the sense of the whole parenthesis, many
interpreters remark, that we must not stop at the bodily disfiguration
of the Servant of God, but that the expression must, at the same time,
be understood figuratively. Thus, Luther says: "The Prophet does not
speak of the form of Christ as to His person, but of the political and
royal form of a Ruler, who is to become an earthly King, and does not
appear in royal form, but as the meanest of all servants; so that no
more despised man than He has been seen in the world." But the Prophet
evidently speaks, in the first instance, of the bodily appearance only;
and we can the less think of a figurative sense, that bodily
disfiguration forms the climax of misery, and that, in this _part_, the
_whole_ of the miserable condition is delineated. Even the severe
inward sufferings are a matter of course, if the outward ones have
risen to such a pitch. How both of these go hand in hand is seen from
Ps. xxii. These interpreters are, farther, wrong in this respect, that
they refer the pretended figurative expression solely to the lowliness
and humility of the Messiah, and not, at the same time, to His
_sufferings_ also. Thus, among the ancient interpreters, it was viewed
by _Jerome_: "The horrid appearance of His form is not thereby
indicated, but that He came in humility and poverty;" and among recent
interpreters by _Martini_: "The sense of the passage does not properly
refer to the deformity of the face, but to the whole external weak,
poor, and humble condition." But, for that, the expression is by far
too strong. Mere lowliness is no object of horror (comp. 1 Cor. i. 23,
according to which it is the _Cross_ which offends the Jews); it does
not produce a deformity of the countenance; it cannot produce the
effect that the Servant of God should, as it were, cease to be a man.
All this suggests an unspeakable _suffering_ of the Servant of God, and
that, moreover, a suffering which, in the first instance, [Pg 268]
manifested itself upon His own holy body. _Farther_--We must also take
into consideration that the _sprinkling_, in ver. 15, has for its
background the shedding of blood, and is the fruit of it, at first
concealed. If any doubt should yet remain, it would be removed by the
subsequent detailed representation of that which is here given in
outline merely. The sole reason of that narrow view is, that
interpreters did not understand the fundamental relation of the section
under consideration to the subsequent section; that they did not
perceive that, here, we have in a complete sketch what there is given
in detail and expansion.--Ver. 15. The verb [Hebrew: nzh] occurs in
very many passages, and signifies in _Hiphil_, everywhere, "to
sprinkle." It is especially set apart and used for the sprinkling with
the blood of atonement, and the water of purification. When "the
anointed priest" had sinned, he took of the blood of the _sacrifice_,
and _sprinkled_ it before the vail of the sanctuary, Lev. iv. 6; comp.
v. 16, 17. The high priest had, every year, on the great day of
atonement, to sprinkle the _blood_ before the Ark of the Covenant, in
order to obtain forgiveness for the people. Lev. xvi. 14, comp. also
vers. 18, 19: "And he shall sprinkle of the blood upon it (the altar)
with his finger seven times, and cleanse it, and hallow it from the
uncleanness of the children of Israel." In the same manner the verb is
used of the sprinkling of blood upon the healed leper, Lev. xiv. 7, and
frequently. According to Numb. xix. 19, the _clean_ person shall
_sprinkle_ upon the unclean, on the third day, and on the seventh day,
"with the water in which are the ashes of the red heifer" when any one
has become unclean by touching a dead body. The outward material
purification frequently serves in the Old Testament to denote the
spiritual purification. Thus, _e.g._, in Ps. i. 9: "Purge me with
hyssop, and I shall be clean;" Ezek. xxxvi. 25: "And I sprinkle clean
water upon you, and you shall be clean from all your filthiness." In
all those passages there lies, everywhere, at the foundation an
allusion to the Levitical purifications (the two last quoted especially
refer to Numb. xix.); and this allusion is by no means so to be
understood, as if he who makes the allusion were drawing the material
into the spiritual sphere. On the contrary, he uses as a figure that
which is, in the law, used symbolically. All the laws of purification
in the Pentateuch [Pg 269] have a symbolical and typical character.
That which was done to the outward impurity was, in point of fact, done
to the _sin_ which the people of the Old Testament, well versed in the
symbolical language, beheld under its image. Hence, here also, the
_sprinkling_ has the signification of _cleansing_ from sin. The
expression indicates that Christ is the true High Priest, to whom the
ordinary priesthood with its sprinklings typically pointed. The
expression is a summary of that which, in the following chapter, we are
told regarding the expiation through the suffering and death of the
Servant of God. The words: "When His soul maketh a sin-offering," in
ver. 10, and: "He shall justify," in ver. 11, correspond. Among the
ancient expositors, this translation is followed by the Syriac and
Vulgate, the _asperget_ of which _Jerome_ thus explains: "He shall
sprinkle many nations, cleansing them by His blood, and in baptism
consecrating them to the service of God." In the New Testament, it is
alluded to in several passages. Thus, in 1 Pet. i. 2, where the Apostle
speaks of the [Greek: rhantismos haimatos Iesou Christou]. Farther, in
Heb. x. 22: [Greek: erhrantismenoi tas kardias apo suneideseos
poneras]; xii. 24: [Greek: kai haimati rhantismou kreitton lalounti
para ton Abel], and also in chap. ix. 13, 14. Among Christian
interpreters, this view was always the prevailing one, was indeed the
view held by the Church. _Schroeder observ. ad origin. Hebr._ c. viii. Sec.
10, raised some objections which were eagerly laid hold of, and
increased by the rationalistic interpreters. Even some sound orthodox
expositors allowed themselves to be thereby dazzled. _Stier_ declares
"that, for this time, he must take the part of modern Exegesis against
the prevailing tradition of the Church." Yet his disrelish for the
doctrine of the atonement held by the Church has no doubt exercised a
considerable influence in this matter; and _Hofmann_, too, in so
decidedly rejecting this explanation, which rests on such strong
arguments, and is not touched by any weighty counter-arguments, seems
not to have been guided by exegetical reasons only. But let us submit
these objections to a closer examination. 1. "The verb ought not to be
construed with the Accusative of the thing to be sprinkled, but with
[Hebrew: el]." _Reinke_ (in his Monograph on Is. liii.) brings forward,
against this objection, the passage Lev. iv. 16, 17; but he is wrong in
this, inasmuch as [Hebrew: at] is there not the [Pg 270] sign of the
Accusative, but a Preposition. [Hebrew: at pni] in the signification
"before," is, elsewhere also, very frequently used. But even _Gesenius_
is compelled to agree with _Simonis_.[2] and to acknowledge that, in
the proper name [Hebrew: izih] the verb is connected with an
Accusative. The deviation is there still greater, inasmuch as the _Kal_
is, at the same time, used transitively. But even apart from that, such
a deviation cannot appear strange. It has an analogy in chap. liii. 11,
where [Hebrew: hcdiq], which everywhere else is construed with the
Accusative, is followed by [Hebrew: l]; and likewise in [Hebrew: rpa],
followed by [Hebrew: l] in chap. liii. 5. The signification of the
verb, in such cases, undergoes a slight modification. [Hebrew: hzh]
with [Hebrew: el] means "to sprinkle;" with the Accusative, "to
sprinkle upon." This modification of the meaning has the analogy of
other languages in its favour. In the Ethiopic, the verb [Hebrew: nzH],
which corresponds to the Hebrew [Hebrew: nzh], is used of the
sprinkling of both persons and things; Heb. ix. 19, xi. 28; Ps. li. 9.
In Latin, we may say: _spargere aquam_, but also _spargere corpus
aqua_; _aspergere quid alicui_, but also _re aliquem_, _conspergere_,
_perspergere_, _respergere quem_. "Why should not this be allowed to
the Jews also,"--remarks _Koecher_--"who have to make up for the defect
of compound verbs by the varied use of simple verbs?" But the Prophet
had a special reason, in the liberty specially afforded by the higher
style, for deviating from the ordinary connection. The [Hebrew: el] had
to be avoided, because, had it been put, the perception of the
correspondence of the subsequent [Hebrew: eliv] with the [Hebrew:
eliK], in ver. 14, would have become more difficult.--2. It is asserted
that it is against the connection; that the contrast to [Hebrew: mwM]
induces us to expect something corresponding. _Beck_ says: "A change in
those who formerly abhorred the Servant is to be expressed here, not _a
deed by the Servant himself_." If there were here, indeed, a contrast
intended to the many who formerly were shocked, we might answer that,
indirectly, the words: "He shall sprinkle," suggest, indeed, an
opposite conduct of the "many Gentiles." No one is cleansed by the
Servant of God, who does not allow himself to be cleansed by [Pg 271]
Him. But no one will desire to be cleansed by Him, who does not put his
whole trust in Him, who does not recognize Him as his King and Lord. To
the contempt and horror with which the Jews shrink back from the
Messiah in His humiliation, would thus be opposed the faithful, humble
confidence, with which the heathens draw near to the glorified Messiah.
But the fact that the real contrast to the [Hebrew: wmmv] is not
[Hebrew: izh], but rather [Hebrew: iqpcv], is clearly shown by [Hebrew:
eliv], which corresponds with [Hebrew: eliK]. The [Hebrew: izh]
corresponds rather to: "He was disfigured." Just as this states the
cause of their being shocked, so in: "He shall sprinkle," the cause of
the shutting of the mouth is stated. This is also seen from a
comparison of chap. liii. 3, 4. His sufferings appeared formerly as the
proof that He was hated by God. Now that the vicarious value of His
suffering manifests itself, it becomes the reason of humble, respectful
submission. Just as, formerly, many were shocked at Him, because he was
so disfigured, so, now, even kings shall shut their mouth at Him on
account of His atonement. Moreover, one does not exactly see how this
reason could be brought forward, as, in a formal point of view, there
is, at all events, "a deed by the Servant himself" before us, in
whatever way we may view the [Hebrew: izh].--3. "If _sprinkling_ were
meant to be equivalent to cleansing by blood, the matter of
purification could not be omitted. If it were objected to this, that
the noun 'blood' might easily be supplied from the verb's being
ordinarily used of cleansing with blood, the objection would be of no
weight, inasmuch as sprinkling was done not only with blood, but also
with water and oil." But the sprinkling with _oil_, denoting
sanctification, appears only quite isolated, and has for its foundation
the sprinkling with blood, comp. Exod. xxix. 21: "And thou shalt take
of the blood which is upon the altar, and of the anointing oil, and
sprinkle it upon Aaron, and he shall be hallowed." The sprinkling with
_water_ has likewise the shedding of blood for its foundation. It was
done with such water only, as had in it the ashes of the sin-offering
of the red heifer. But the Prophet has certainly on purpose made no
express mention of the blood, because that water, too, should be
included. This fact, that the sprinkling here comprehends both, was
perceived by the author of the Epistle to the Hebrews, in chap. ix.
13, 14: [Greek: ei gar to haima] [Pg 272] [Greek: tauron kai tragon kai
spodos damaleos rhantizousa tous kekoinomenous hagiazei pros ten tes
sarkos katharoteta. mallon to haima tou Christou ... kathariei ten
suneidesin hemon apo nekron ergon eis to latreuein Theo zonti.] The
defilement by dead bodies, against which the water of purification was
specially used, is the most significant symbol of sinners and sins.--4.
"It is, in general, not probable that the Servant of God, who farther
down is described as a sacrificial beast (!),--who, by taking upon
Himself the sins of His people, dies for them, should here appear as
the High Priest justifying them." Thus _Umbreit_ argues. But in
opposition to this view, it is sufficient to refer to: "He shall
justify," in chap. liii. 11, which is parallel to "He shall sprinkle."
That which, in the typical sacrifices, is separated, is, in the
antitypical, most closely connected. Even at the very first beginnings
of sacred history, it was established for all times, that the
difference between him who offers up, and that which is offered up,
should not go beyond the territory of animal sacrifice. But there is
the less ground for setting aside the reference to the priestly office
of the Messiah, that, even before Isaiah, David, in Ps. cx. 4,
designates Christ as the true High Priest on account of the atonement
to be made by Him; and, after Isaiah, Zechariah says in chap. vi. 13:
"And He sitteth and ruleth upon the throne, and He is a Priest upon His
throne."--It has now become current to derive [Hebrew: izh] from
[Hebrew: nzh] in the signification "to leap"--"He shall cause to leap.
This explanation made its appearance at first in a very cautious way."
_Martini_ says: "I myself feel how very far from a right and sure
interpretation that is, which I am now, but very timidly, to advance,
regarding the sense of the received reading [Hebrew: izh]." By and by,
however, expositors hardened themselves against the decisive objections
which stand in the way of it. These objections are the following. 1.
The Hebrew _usus loquendi_ is in [Hebrew: nzh] so sure, that we are not
entitled to take the explanation from the Arabic. The verb is, in
Hebrew, never used except of _fluids_. In _Kal_, it does not mean "to
leap," but "to spatter," Lev. vi. 20 (27): "And upon whose garment is
_spattered_ of the blood;" 2 Kings ix. 33; Is. lxiii. 5. In _Hiphil_,
it is set apart and used exclusively for the holy sprinklings; and the
more frequently it occurs in this signification, the less are we at
liberty to deviate from it. 2. "He shall make to leap" would be far too
indefinite,--a circumstance [Pg 273] which appears from the vague and
arbitrary conjectures of the supporters of this view. _Gesenius_, in
his Commentary, _Stier_, and others, think of a leaping for joy, in
support of which they have quoted the _Kamus_, according to which the
verb is used of wanton asses! According to _Gesenius_ in the
_Thesaurus_, _Hofmann_, and others, the Gentiles are to leap up, in
order to show their _reverence_ for the Servant of God. According to
_Hitzig_ and others, it is to leap for _astonishment_, while, according
to _Umbreit_ and others, it is for _joyful admiration_. One sees that
the mere "He shall make to leap" is in itself too meaningless; and
interpreters are obliged to make the best addition which they can.--3.
According to this explanation, no cause is assigned by which the homage
of the Gentiles is called forth; and that cause can the less be
omitted, that the horror of the Jews is traced back to its cause. The
parenthesis in ver. 14 lacks its antithesis; and that this antithesis
must lie in [Hebrew: izh], is rendered probable even by the
circumstance, that this word signifies, in a formal point of view,
something which the Servant of God does, and not something which the
Gentiles do, while we should, by the antithesis to [Hebrew: wmmv], be
led to expect just this.[3]--In the _protasis_, the discourse is only
of many; here, it is of many nations (_Gousset_: "It is emphatic, so
that it comprehends all, and denotes, at the same time, that they are
numerous"), and of kings. This is quite natural; for it was only
members of the covenant-people who felt shocked, while the reverence is
felt by the whole Gentile world.--The _shutting of the mouth_ occurs
elsewhere, too, repeatedly, as a sign of reverence and humble
submission. The reference of [Hebrew: eliv] to [Hebrew: eliK], shows
that _Ewald_ is wrong in explaining it by "besides Him." Since the
preceding [Hebrew: el] designated the object of the horror,--the
substratum of it--it must here, too, designate the substratum of the
shutting of the mouth, and "over Him," be equivalent to: "on account of
Him," "out of reverence for Him."--In the exposition of the last words,
the old translations differ. We may explain them either: "They to whom
it had not been [Pg 274] told, see;" thus the LXX.: [Greek: hois ouk
anengele peri autou, opsontai, kai hoi ouk akekoasi, sunesousi], whom
Paul follows in Rom. xv. 21. (In that context, however, the difference
of the two explanations is of no consequence; the passage would be
equally suitable, even according to the other interpretation.) Or, we
may explain them: "That which had not been told them, they see," &c.
Thus the other ancient translations explain. According to the first
view, the connection would be this: For, in order that ye may not
wonder at my speaking to you of nations and kings, they who, &c.
According to the second view, the ground of the reverence of the
heathen kings and their people is stated. That which formerly had not
been told to them, had not been heard by them, is the expiation by the
Servant of God. By Him they receive a blessing not formerly hoped for
or expected, and are thereby filled with silent reverence towards the
Author of the gift. We decide in favour of the former view, according
to which chap. lxvi. 19: "That have not heard my fame, neither have
seen my glory," is parallel. The contrast, in our verse, to those who
did not hear and who now perceive, is, in the subsequent verse, formed
by those who do hear, and do not believe. The words: "Who had not been
told, who did not hear," refer to the Messianic announcement which was
given to Israel only, and from which the Gentiles were excluded.[4]

Upon this sketch, there follows in chap. liii. 1-10, the enlargement.
First, in vers. 1-3 that is expounded which, in ver. 14 had been said
of the many being _shocked_, and of the _cause_. The commentary upon
[Hebrew: wmmv] "they were shocked," is given in ver. 1: a great portion
of the Jews do not believe in the salvation which had appeared. The
enlargement of: "so marred," &c., is given in vers. 2, 3. The cause of
the [Pg 275] unbelief is, that the glory of the Servant of God is
concealed behind humiliation, misery, and shame.

Chap. liii. 1: "_Who believes that which we hear, and the arm of the
Lord, to whom it is revealed?_"

The Prophet, whose spiritual eye is just falling upon the large, the
enormously large number of unbelievers, overlooks, at the moment, the
other aspect, and, in his grief, expresses that which took place in a
large _portion_ only, in such a manner as if it were general. Similar
representations we elsewhere frequently meet with, _e.g._, Ps. xiv. 3
(compare my Commentary); Jer. v. 1--[Hebrew: wmveh] is commonly
understood in the signification, "message" or "discourse." But in
favour of the explanation: "That which is heard by us," _q.d._, "that
which we hear," there is, in the first instance, the _usus loquendi_.
The word never occurs in any other than its original signification,
"that which is heard," and in the signification, "rumour," which is
closely connected with the former. In Isa. xxviii. 9, a passage which
is most confidently referred to in proof of the signification,
_institutio_, _doctrina_, [Hebrew: wmveh] is that which the Prophet
hears from God. The mockers who exclaim: "Whom will he make to
understand [Hebrew: wmveh]?" take, with a sneer, out of his mouth the
word upon which chap. xxi. 10: "That which I have heard of the Lord of
Hosts, I declare unto you," forms a commentary, [Greek: Akoe] too, by
which, in the New Testament, [Hebrew: wmveh] is rendered, has not at
all the signification, "discourse," "preaching." [Greek: Akoe] in Rom.
x. 16, 17, is not the preaching, but the hearing, as is shown by the
[Greek: me ouk ekousan] in ver. 18. The [Greek: akoe], according to
ver. 17: [Greek: he de akoe dia rhematos Theou], is the passive to the
active to the word of God. "Who believes our [Greek: akoe], our
hearing," _i.e._, that which we hear, which is made known to us by the
Word of God. In a passive sense, [Greek: akoe] stands likewise in the
passages Matt. iv. 24, xiv. 1, xxiv. 6, which _Stier_ cites in support
of the signification "discourse," "preaching;" it is that which has
been heard by some one, "rumour," "report." In Heb. iv. 2 (as also in 1
Thess. ii. 13) [Greek: logos akoes], is the word which they heard. That
passage: [Greek: ouk ophelesen ho logos tes akoes ekeinous, me
sunkekramenos te pistei tois akousasi], may simply be considered as a
paraphrase of our: Who believes that which we hear. A second argument
in favour of our explanation: "That which we hear" lies in the relation
[Pg 276] to the preceding, which, only when thus explained, arranges itself
suitably: "Those understand what they formerly did not hear; Israel, on
the contrary, does not believe that which they have heard." Of great
importance, _finally_, is the circumstance, that it is only with this
interpretation that the unity of the speaker in vers. 1-10 can be
maintained. In the sequel, the _we_ everywhere refers to the _believing
Church_. But, for this reason, it is difficult to think here of the
order of the teachers, which must be the case when we translate: "Who
believes our preaching." It has been objected that, even in this case,
no real change of subject takes place, but that, in both cases, the
Prophet is speaking, with this difference only, that, in ver. 1, he
numbers himself among the proclaimers of the message, while, in ver. 2
ff., he reckons himself among the believing Congregation. But we shall
be obliged not to bring in the Prophet at all. In ver. 2 ff., the
speaker is the believing Church of the _Future_, in the time after the
appearance of the Saviour, and just so, in ver. 1, the preaching, if it
should be spoken of at all, cannot belong to the Prophet and his
contemporaries, but to those only who came forward with the message of
the manifested Saviour; just as in John xii. 38; Rom. x. 16, our verse
is referred to the unbelief of the Jews in the manifested Saviour. The
cause of the unbelief over which ver. 1 laments is indeed, according to
vers. 2 and 3, the appearance of the Saviour in the form of a Servant,
and His bitter suffering. That, then, must first have taken place,
before the unbelief manifested itself.[5] _Stier_ rightly remarks:
"Between 'the arm of God,'and ourselves, a [Hebrew: wmveh] is placed
as the medium, and the point is to believe in it." It is the gospel,
the tidings of the manifested Saviour. By the side of the joy over the
many Gentiles who with delight hear and understand the message of the
Servant of God, there is the sorrow over the many in Israel who do not
believe this message.--The _arm of the Lord_ comes into consideration
as the seat of His divine power; comp. chap. xl. 10, li. 5-9, lii. 10.
[Pg 277] According to the context, the manifestation of this power in
Christ is here spoken of _Stier_ says: "In this Servant, the redeeming
arm manifests itself, personifies itself Christ himself is, as it were,
the outstretched arm of the Lord." In Rom. i. 16, the Gospel is
designated as [Greek: dunamis Theou eis soterian panti to pisteuonti.]
[Hebrew: glh] is elsewhere commonly construed with [Hebrew: al] or
[Hebrew: l], here with [Hebrew: el]. This indicates that the revealing
of the arm of the Lord is of a _supernatural_ kind, such an one as
conies down from above. The Lord has revealed His arm, His power and
glory, as He has manifested them in the mission of His servant, _in the
eyes of all_ (comp. chap. lii. 10: "The Lord hath made bare His holy
arm in the eyes of all the nations, and all the ends of the earth see
the salvation of our God"); but it is really seen by those only whose
eyes God opens. The deeds of God, even the most manifest, always retain
the nature of a mystery which remains concealed to the worldly
disposition. God can be recognised only by God. Of the ungodly it holds
true: "With seeing eyes they do not see, and with hearing ears they do
not hear." What was the _cause_ of this unbelief in the Son of God, we
are told in the sequel. It is the appearance of the Divine in the form
of a servant, which the gross carnal disposition cannot understand, and
by which it is offended. This offence which, according to the sequel,
even the God-fearing had to overcome, is, for the ungodly, a lasting
one.

Ver. 2. "_And He grew up as the sprout before Him, and as the root from
a dry ground. He had no form nor comeliness: and we see Him, but there
is no appearance that we should desire Him._"

The relation of this verse to the preceding one was correctly seen by
_Michaelis_: "The cause of the offence is this, that He does not rise
or stand out like the cedar, but He grows up gradually," &c. The
subject, the Servant of God, is easily inferred from [Hebrew: eliv] in
ver. 15. This is the more admissible that ver. 1, too, indirectly
refers to Him. He is the subject of the report in whose appearance the
arm of the Lord has been revealed. The _sprout_, the twig, designates,
even in itself, the poor condition; and, notwithstanding _Stier's_
counter-remarks, it is the pointing to such a poor condition alone
which suits the connection, and there is no reason why we should here
already [Pg 278] supply "from a dry ground." A member of the royal
house before its fall resembled, at his very origin, a proud tree, or,
at least, a proud branch of such a tree. The sprout, here, supposes the
stump, [Hebrew: gze]. in chap. xi. 8. [Hebrew: ivnq] elsewhere always
signifies "suckling;" comp. here chap. xi. 8. Of the sprout, elsewhere,
the feminine [Hebrew: ivnqt] is used. According to _Stier_, this
deviation from the common use is here not a matter of accident.
Supposing a double sense, he finds it an indication of the helpless
infancy of the Redeemer, and in this a representation of His lowliness.
The LXX.: [Greek: hos paidion]. The suffix in [Hebrew: lpniv] "before
Him" refers to the immediately preceding [Hebrew: ihvh], not to the
people. _Before Him_, the Lord--known to Him, watched by Him, standing
under His protection, comp. Gen. xvii. 18; Job viii. 16. The lowliness
here, and the contempt of men in ver. 3, form the contrast; He is low,
but He will not remain so; for the eye of the Most High is directed
towards Him. Before the eyes of men who are not able to penetrate to
the substance through the appearance, He is concealed; but God beholds
Him, beholds His concealed glory, beholds His high destination; and
because He beholds, He also takes care, and prepares His transition
from lowliness to glory. But the "before Him" does not by any means
here form the main thought; it only gives a gentle and incidental
hint.--The _root_ denotes here, as in chap. xi. 1, 10, the product of
the root, that whereby it becomes visible, the sprout from the root. In
reference to this parallel passage, _Stier_ strikingly remarks: "It is,
by our modern interpreters, put aside as quietly as possible; for, with
a powerful voice, it proclaims to us two truths: that the same Isaiah
refers to his former prophecy,--and that this Servant of the Lord here
is none other than the Messiah there." A twig which grows up from a dry
place is insignificant and poor. Just as the Messiah is here, in
respect to His state of humiliation, and specially in reference to His
origin from the house of David, sunk into complete obscurity, compared
to a weak, insignificant twig, so He is, in Ezek. xvii. 23, in
reference to His state of glorification, compared to a lofty, splendid
cedar tree, under which all the fowls of heaven dwell. The Jews, in
opposition even to ver. 22 of Ezekiel, expected that He should appear
so from the very beginning; and since He did not appear so, they [Pg
279] despised Him. The [Hebrew: vnrahv] is, by most of the modern
interpreters, in opposition to the accents, connected with the first
member: "He had no form nor comeliness that _we should have seen Him_."
But from internal reasons, this explanation must be rejected. "To see,"
in the sense of "to perceive," would not be suitable. For, how could
they have such views of the condition of the Servant of God, if they
overlooked Him? But it is not possible to adduce any real demonstrative
parallel passage in support of [Hebrew: rah] with the Accusat., without
[Hebrew: b], ever having the signification, "to look at," "to consider
with delight." The circumstance that the Future is used in the sense of
the Present: "and we see Him," is explained from the Prophet's viewing
it as present.--The statement that the Servant of God had no form, nor
comeliness, nor appearance, must not be referred to His lowliness
before His sufferings only; we must, on the contrary, perceive, in His
sufferings and death, the completion of this condition; in the _Ecce
Homo_, the full historical realization of it. _Calvin_ rightly points
out that that which here, in the first instance, is said of the Head,
is repeated upon the Church; He says: "This must not be understood of
Christ's person only, who was despised by the world, and was at last
given up to an ignominious death, but of His whole Kingdom which, in
the eyes of men, had no form, nor comeliness, nor splendour."

Ver. 3. "_Despised and most unworthy among men, a man of pains and an
acquaintance of disease, and like one hiding His face from us,
despised, and we esteemed Him not._"

In the preceding verse, we are told what the Servant of God had _not_,
viz., anything which could have attracted the natural man who had no
conception of the inward glory, and as little of the cause why the
Divine appears in the form of a Servant and a sufferer. Here we are
told what He had, viz.: everything to _offend_ and _repulse_ him to
whom the arm of the Lord had not been revealed,--the full measure of
misery and the cross. Instead of "the most unworthy among men," the
text literally translated has: "one ceasing from among men" ( [Hebrew:
Hdl] in the signification "ceasing" in Ps. xxxix. 5), _i.e._, one who
ceases to belong to men, to be a man, exactly corresponding to "from
man," and "from the sons of men," in the sketch, ver. 14, and to: "I am
a worm and no man," in Ps. xxii. [Pg 280] The explanation: "Forsaken by
men, rejected of men," is opposed by the _usus loquendi_, and by these
parallel passages.--"A man of pains"--one who, as it were, possesses
pains as his property. There is a similar expression in Prov. xxix. 1:
"A man of chastenings"--one who is often chastened. "An acquaintance of
disease,"--one who is intimately acquainted with it, who has, as it
were, entered into a covenant of friendship with it. The passive
Participle has no other signification than this, Deut. i. 13, 15, and
does not occur in the signification of the active Participle
"knowing."--There is no reason for supposing that disease stands here
_figuratively_. It comprehends also the pain arising from wounds, 1
Kings xxii. 34; Jer. vi. 7, x. 19; and there is so much the greater
reason for thinking of it here, that [Hebrew: hHli] in ver. 10,
evidently refers to the [Hebrew: Hli] in this place. As an acquaintance
of disease, the Lord especially showed himself in His _passion_. And
then _every sorrow_ may be viewed as a disease; every sorrow has, to a
certain degree, disease in its train. On Ps. vi., where sickness is
represented as the consequence of hostile persecution, Luther remarks:
"Where the heart is afflicted, the whole body is weary and bruised;
while, on the other hand, where there is a joyful heart, the body is
also so much the more active and strong." [Hebrew: hstir] always means
"to hide;" the whole phrase occurs in chap. l. 6, in the signification
"to hide the face." [Hebrew: mstr] is the Participle in _Hiphil_. In
the singular, it is true, such a form is not found any where else; but,
in the Plural, it is, Jer. xxix. 8. In favour of the interpretation:
"Like one hiding His face from us," is the evident reference to the law
in Lev. xiii. 45: "The leper in whom the plague is, his clothes shall
be rent and his head bare, _and the beard he shall have covered over_,
and shall cry: Unclean, unclean,"--where that which the leper crieth
forms the commentary upon the symbolical act of the covering. They
covered themselves, as a sign of shame, as far as possible, in order to
allow of breathing, up to the nose; hence the mention of the beard. In
my Commentary on the Song of Solomon i. 7, it was proved that covering
has every where the meaning of being put to shame--of being in a
shameful condition. The leper was by the law condemned to be a living
representation of _sin_. No horror was like that which was felt in his
presence. _Hence_ [Pg 281] _it is the highest degree of humiliation and
abasement which is expressed by the comparison with the leper, who must
hide his face, whom God has marked._ It is the more natural to suppose
this reference to the leper, that probably, the [Hebrew: Hdl aiwiM]
likewise pointed to the leper. The leper was "one ceasing from men." In
2 Kings xv. 5; 2 Chron. xxvi. 21, a house in which lepers dwell is
called a "house of liberty," _i.e._, of separation from all human
society; compare the expression "free among the dead," in Ps. lxxxviii.
6. Lepers were considered as dead persons. Uzziah, while in his
leprosy, was, according to the passage in Chronicles already cited, cut
off from the house of the Lord, and forfeited his place there, where
all the servants of the Lord dwell with Him. To leprosy, the term
[Hebrew: ngve] in ver. 4 likewise points. _Beck's_ objection: "The
point in question here is not that which the unfortunate man does but
that which others do in reference to him," is based upon a
misconception. Neither the one nor the other is spoken of The
comparative [Hebrew: k] must not be overlooked. The comparison with the
leper, the culminating point of all contempt, is highly suitable to the
parallelism with [Hebrew: nbzh]. Ordinarily [Hebrew: mstr] is now
understood as a _substantivum verbale_: "He was like hiding of the face
before Him," _i.e._, like a thing or person before which or whom we
hide our face, because we cannot bear its horrible and disgusting
appearance. But with one before whom we hide our face, the Servant of
God could not be compared; the comparison would, in that case, be
weak.--[Hebrew: nbzh] is not the 1st pers. Fut. but Partic. Niph.,
"despised."--The close of the verse returns to its beginning, after
having been, in the middle, established and made good.

The second subdivision from ver. 4 to ver. 7 furnishes us with the key
to the sufferings of the Servant of God described in what precedes, by
pointing to their _vicarious character_, to which (ver. 7) the conduct
of the Servant of God under His sufferings corresponds.

Ver. 4. "_But our diseases He bore, and our pains He took upon Him: and
we esteemed Him plagued, smitten of God, and afflicted._"

The words [Hebrew: Hli] and [Hebrew: mkab] of the preceding verse here
appear again. He was laden with disease and pains; but these
sufferings, the wages of sin, were not inflicted upon Him on account
[Pg 282] of His own sins, but on account of our sins, so that the
horror falls back upon ourselves, and is changed into loving admiration
of Him. _Beck_ remarks: "Properly speaking, they had not become sick or
unfortunate at all; this had _a priori_ been rendered impossible by the
vicarious suffering of the Son of God; but since they deserved the
sickness and calamity, the averting of it might be considered as a
healing." But this view is altogether the result of embarrassment.
Disease is the inseparable companion of sin. If the persons speaking
are subject to the latter, the disease cannot be considered as an evil
merely threatening them. If they speak of their diseases, we think, in
the first instance, of sickness by which they have already been seized;
and the less obvious sense ought to have been expressly indicated. In
the same manner, the healing also suggests hurts already existing. But
quite decisive is ver. 6, where the miserable condition clearly appears
to have already taken place.--According to the opinion of several
interpreters, by diseases, all inward and outward sufferings are
figuratively designated; according to the opinion of others,
_spiritual_ diseases, sins. But even from the relation of this verse to
the preceding, it appears that here, in the first instance, diseases
and pains, in the ordinary sense, are spoken of; just as the blind and
deaf in chap. xxxv. are, in the first instance, they who are naturally
blind and deaf.--Disease and pain here cannot be spoken of in a sense
different from that in which it is spoken of there. Diseases, in the
sense of _sins_, do not occur at all in the Old Testament. The
circumstance that in the parallel passage, vers. 11 and 12, the bearing
of the _transgressions_ and _sins_ is spoken of, does not prove
anything. The Servant of God bears them also in their consequences, in
their punishments, among which sickness and pains occupy a prominent
place. Of the bearing of outward sufferings, [Hebrew: nwa Hli] occurs
in Jer. x. 19 also. If the words are rightly understood, then at once,
light falls upon the apostolic quotation in Matt. viii. 16, 17: [Greek:
pantas tous kakos echontas etherapeusen, hopos plerothe to rhethen dia
Esaiou tou prophetou legontos. autos tas astheneias hemon elabe kai tas
nosous ebastase]; and this deserves a consideration so much the more
careful, that the Evangelist here intentionally deviates from the
Alexandrine version ( [Greek: houtos tas hamartias hemon pherei kai
peri hemon odunatai]). In doing so, "we [Pg 283] do not give an
external meaning to that which is to be understood spiritually;" but
when the Saviour healed the sick, He fulfilled the prophecy before us
in its most proper and obvious sense. And this fulfilment is even now
going on. For him who stands in a living faith in Christ, sickness,
pain, and, in general all sorrow, have lost their sting. But it has not
yet appeared what we shall be, and we have still to expect the complete
fulfilment. In the Kingdom of glory, sickness and pain shall have
altogether disappeared.--Some interpreters would translate [Hebrew:
nwa] by "to take away;" but even the parallel [Hebrew: sbl] is
conclusive against such a view; and, farther, the ordinary use of
[Hebrew: nwa] of the bearing of the punishment of sin, _e.g._, Ezek.
xviii. 19; Num. xiv. 33; Lev. v. 1, xx. 17. But of conclusive weight is
the connection with the preceding verse, where the Servant of God
appears as the intimate acquaintance of sickness, as the man of pains.
He has, accordingly, not only _put away_ our sicknesses and pains, but
He has, as our substitute, _taken them upon Him_; He has healed us by
His having himself become sick in our stead. This could be done only by
His having, in the first instance, as a substitute, appropriated our
_sins_, of which the sufferings are the consequence; compare 1 Peter
ii. 24: [Greek: hos tas hamartias hemon autos anenenken en to somati
autou epi to xulon.]--_Plagued_, _smitten of God_, _afflicted_, are
expressions which were commonly used in reference to the visitation of
sinful men. It is especially in the word _plagued_, which is
intentionally placed first, that the reference to a self-deserved
suffering is strongly expressed, compare Ps. lxxiii. 14: "For all the
day long am I _plagued_, and my chastisement is new every morning." Of
Uzziah, visited on account of his sin, it is said in 2 Kings xv. 5:
"And the Lord inflicted a _plague_ upon the king, and he was a leper
unto the day of his death." [Hebrew: nge] "plague" is in Lev. xiii., as
it were, _nomen proprium_ for the leprosy, which in the law is so
distinctly designated as a punishment of sin.--[Hebrew: hkh] too, is
frequently used of the infliction of divine punishments and judgments.
Num. xiv. 12; Deut. xxviii. 22. The people did not err in considering
the suffering as a punishment of sin, but only in considering it as a
punishment for the sins committed by the Servant of God himself.
According to the view of both the Old and New Testament, every
suffering is [Pg 284] punishment. The suffering of a perfect saint,
however, involves a contradiction, unless it be vicarious. By his
completely stepping out of the territory of sin, he must also step out
of the territory of evil, which, according to the doctrine established
at the very threshold of revelation, is the wages of sin, for otherwise
God would not be holy and just. Hence, as regards the Servant of God,
we have only the alternatives: either His sinlessness must be doubted,
or the vicarious nature of His sufferings must be acknowledged. The
persons speaking took up, at first, the former position; after their
eyes had been opened, they chose the latter.

Ver. 5, "_And He was pierced for our transgressions, crushed for our
iniquities; the chastisement of our peace was upon Him, and by His
wounds we are healed._"

[Hebrew: hva] "He" stands in front, in order emphatically to point out
Him who suffered as a substitute, in contrast to those who had really
deserved the punishment: "He, on account of our transgressions." There
is no reason for deviating:, in the case of [Hebrew: Hll], from the
original signification "to pierce," and adopting the general
signification "to wound;" the LXX. [Greek: etraumatisthe]. _The
chastisement of our peace_ is the chastisement whereby peace is
acquired for us. Peace stands as an individualizing designation of
salvation; in the world of contentions, peace is one of the highest
blessings. Natural man is on all sides surrounded by enemies; [Greek:
dikaiothentes ek pisteos eirenen echomen pros ton Theo dia tou kuriou
hemon Iesou Christou], Rom. v. 1, and peace with God renders all other
enemies innocuous, and at last removes them altogether. The peace is
inseparable from the substitution. If the Servant of God has borne our
sins, He has thereby, at the same time, acquired peace; for, just as He
enters into our guilt, so we now enter into His reward. The justice of
God has been satisfied through Him; and thus an open way has been
prepared for His bestowing peace and salvation. The _chastisement_ can,
according to the context, be only an actual one, only such as consists
in the infliction of some _evil_. It is in misconception and narrowness
of view that the explanation of the followers of _Menke_ originated:
"The instruction for our peace is with Him." This explanation militates
against the whole context, in which not the _doctrine_ but the
_suffering_ of the Servant of God is spoken of; against the parallelism
[Pg 285] with: "By His wounds we are healed;" against the [Hebrew:
eliv], "upon Him," which, according to a comparison with: "He bore our
disease, and took upon Him our pains," must indicate that the
punishment lay upon the sufferer like a pressing _burden_. It is only
from aversion to the doctrine of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ,
that we can account for the fact, that that doctrine could be so
generally received by that theological school. More candid are the
rationalistic interpreters. Thus _Hitzig_ remarks: "_The chastisement
of our peace_ is not a chastisement which would have been salutary for
our morality, nor such as might serve for our salvation, but according
to the parallelism, such as has served for our salvation, and has
allowed us to come off safe and unhurt." _Stier_, too, endeavours to
explain the "chastisement of our peace," in an artificial way.
According to him, there is always implied in [Hebrew: mvsr] the
tendency towards setting right and healing the chastised one himself;
but wherever this word occurs, a retributive pain and destruction are
never spoken of But, in opposition to this view, there is the fact that
[Hebrew: mvsr] does not by any means rarely occur as signifying the
punishments which are inflicted upon stiff-necked obduracy, and which
bear a destructive character, and which, therefore, cannot be derived
from the principle of correction, but from that of retribution only.
Thus, _e.g._, in Prov. xv. 10: "Bad _chastisement_ shall be to those
that forsake the way, and he that hateth chastisement shall die," on
which _Michaelis_ remarks: "_In antanaclasi ad correptionem amicam et
paternum, mortem et mala quaelibet inferens, in ira_," Ps. vi. 2. Of
destructive punishment, too, the verb is used in Jer. ii. 19. But one
does not at all see how the idea of "setting right" should be suitable
here; for surely, as regards the Servant of God himself, the absolutely
Righteous, the suffering here has the character of chastisement. It is
not the mere suffering, but the chastisement, which is upon Him; but
that necessarily requires that the punishment should proceed from the
principle of _retribution_, and that the Servant of God stands forth as
our Substitute.--[Hebrew: nrpa], Preter. Niph., hence "healing has been
bestowed upon us;"--[Hebrew: rpa] with [Hebrew: l], in the
signification "to bring healing," occurs also in chap. vi. 10, but
nowhere else. The healing is an individualising designation of
deliverance from the punishments of sin, called forth by the [Pg 286]
circumstance that disease occupied so prominent a place among them, and
had therefore been so prominently brought forward in what precedes. In
harmony with the Apostolic quotation, the expression clearly shows that
the punitive sufferings were already lying upon the persons speaking;
that by the Substitute they were not by any means delivered from the
future evils, but that the punishment, the inseparable companion of
sin, already existed, and was taken away by Him.

Ver. 6. "_All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one
to his own way, and the Lord hath made the iniquities of us all to fall
upon Him._"

_Calvin_ remarks: "In order the more strongly to impress upon the
hearts of men the benefits of Christ's death, the Prophet shews how
necessary is that healing which was mentioned before. There is herd an
elegant antithesis; for, in ourselves we are scattered, but, in Christ
collected; by nature we go astray and are carried headlong to
destruction,--in Christ we find the way in which we are led to the gate
of salvation; our iniquities cover and oppress us,--but they are
transferred to Christ by whom we are unburdened."--_All we_--in the
first instance, members of the covenant-people,--not, however, as
contrasted with the rest of mankind, but as partaking in the general
human destiny.--_We have turned every one to his own way_; we walked
through life solitary, forsaken, miserable, separated from God and the
good Shepherd, and deprived of His pastoral care. According to
_Hofmann_, the going astray designates the _liability_ to punishment,
but not the misery of the speakers; and the words also: "We have
turned," &c., mean, according to him, that they chose their own ways,
but not that they walked sorrowful or miserable. But the ordinary use
of the image militates against that view. In Ps. cxix. 176: "I go
astray like a lost sheep, seek thy servant," the going astray is a
figurative designation of being destitute of salvation. The misery of
the condition is indicated by the image of the scattered flock, also in
1 Kings xxii. 17: "I saw all Israel scattered upon the hills as sheep
that have not a shepherd." _Michaelis_ pertinently remarks: "Nothing is
so miserable as sheep without a shepherd,--a thing which Scripture so
often repeats, Num. xxvii. 17," &c. As a commentary upon our passage,
Ezek. xxxiv. 4-6 may serve; [Pg 287] and according to that passage we
shall be compelled to think of their being destitute of the care of a
shepherd: "And they are scattered, because there is no Shepherd; and
they become meat to all the beasts of the field. My sheep wander on all
the mountains, and on every high hill, and over the whole land my sheep
are scattered, and there is none that careth for them, or seeketh
them." The point of comparison is very distinctly stated in Matt. ix.
36 also: [Greek: idon de tous ochlous esplanchnisthe peri auton, hoti
esan eskulmenoi kai erhrimenoi hosei probata me echonta poimena.]
Without doubt, turning to one's own ways is sinful, comp. chap. lvi.
11; but here it is not so much the aspect of sin, as that of misery,
which is noticed. As the chief reason of the sheep's wandering and
going astray, the bad condition of the shepherd must be considered,
comp. Jer. l. 6: "Perishing sheep were my people; their shepherds led
them astray," John x. 8: [Greek: pantes hosoi pro emou elthon, kleptai
eisi kai lestai.]--[Hebrew: pge] with [Hebrew: b] signifies "to hit;"
hence _Hiphil_, "to cause to hit." The iniquities of the whole
community _hit_ the Servant of God in their punishments; but according
to the biblical view, their punishments can come upon Him only as such,
only by His coming forward as a substitute for sinners, and not because
He suffers for the guilt of others to which He remained a stranger. By
this throwing the guilt upon the Servant of God, the condition of being
without a shepherd is _done_ away with, the flock is gathered from its
scattered condition. The wall of separation which was raised by its
guilt, and which separated it from God, the fountain of salvation, is
now removed by His substitution, and the words: "The Lord is my
Shepherd," now become a truth, comp. John x. 4.

Ver. 7. "_He was oppressed, and when He was plagued, He does not open
His mouth, like a lamb which is brought to the slaughter, and as a
sheep which is dumb before her shearers, and He does not open his
mouth._"

In these words, we have a description of the manner in which the
Servant of God _bore_ such sufferings. It flows necessarily from the
circumstance, that it was a vicarious suffering. The substitution
implies that He took them upon Him spontaneously; and this has patience
for its companion. First, the contents of ver. 6 are once more summed
up in the word [Hebrew: ngw], "He was oppressed:" then, this condition
of the Servant [Pg 288] of God is brought into connection with His
_conduct_, which, only in this connection, appears in its full
majesty.--[Hebrew: ngw] is the Preterite in _Niphal_, and not, as
_Beck_ thinks, 1st pers. Fut. _Kal_. For the Future would be here
unusual; the verb has elsewhere the Future in _o_; the suffix is
wanting, and the sense which then arises suits only the untenable
supposition that, in vers. 1-10, the _Gentiles_ are speaking. The
_Niphal_ occurs in 1 Sam. xiii. 6, of Israel oppressed by the
Philistines; and in 1 Sam. xiv. 24, of those borne down by heavy toil
and fatigue. [Hebrew: ngw] and [Hebrew: nenh] "to be humbled,
oppressed, abused," do not, in themselves essentially differ; it is
only on account of the context, and the contrast implied in it, that
the same condition is once more designated by a word which is nearly
synonymous. The words "and He" separate [Hebrew: nenh] from what
precedes, and connect it with what follows. The explanation: "He was
oppressed, but He suffered patiently," has this opposed to it, that the
two _Niphals_, following immediately upon one another, cannot here
stand in a different meaning. The idea of patience would here not be a
collateral, but the main idea, and hence, could not stand without a
stronger designation.--In [Hebrew: iptH], the real Future has taken the
place of the ideal Past; it shows that the preceding Preterites are to
be considered as prophetical, and that, in point of fact, the suffering
of the Servant of God is no less future than His glorification. The
_lamb_ points back to Exod. xii. 3, and designates Christ as the true
paschal lamb. With a reference to the verse under consideration, John
the Baptist calls Christ the Lamb of God, John i. 29; comp. 1 Pet. i.
18, 19; Acts viii. 32-35. But since it is not the vicarious character
of Christ's sufferings which here, in the first instance, comes into
consideration, but His patience under them, the lamb is associated with
the female sheep, and that not in relation to her slayers, but to her
shearers. The last words: "And He does not open His mouth," are not to
be referred to the lamb, as some think, (even the circumstance that the
preceding [Hebrew: rHl] is a feminine noun militates against this
view), but, like the first: "He does not open His mouth," to the
Servant of God. It is an expressive repetition, and one which is
intended to direct attention to this feature; comp. the close of ver.
3; Gen. xlix. 4: Judges v. 16. The fulfilment is shown by 1 Pet. ii.
23: [Pg 289] [Greek: hos loidoroumenos ouk anteloidorei, paschon ouk
epeilei, paredidou de to krinonti dikaios]; and likewise Matt. xxvii.
12-14: [Greek: kai en to kategoreisthai auton hupo ton archiereon kai
ton presbuteron ouen apekrinato. Tote legei auto ho Pilatos. ouk
akoueis posasou katamarturousi; kai ouk apekrithe auto pros ouden hen
rhema, hoste thaumazein ton hegemona lian.] Comp. xxvi. 62; Mark xv. 5;
Luke xxiii. 9; John xix. 9.

The third subdivision of the principal portion, vers. 8-10, describes
_the reward of the Servant of God_, by expanding the words: "Kings
shall shut their mouths on account of Him," in chap. lii. 15, and "He
shall be exalted," in ver. 13.

Ver. 8. "_From oppression and from judgment He was taken, and His
generation who can think it out; for He was cut of out of the land of
the living for the transgression of my people, whose the punishment._"

God--such is the sense--takes Him to himself from heavy oppression, and
He who apparently was destroyed without leaving a trace, receives an
infinitely numerous generation (compare John xii. 32: [Greek: kago
hean hupsotho ek tes ges pantas helkuso pros emauton]), as a deserved
reward for having, by His violent death, atoned for the sins of His
people, delivered them from destruction, and acquired them for His
property.--[Hebrew: ecr] "oppression," as Ps. cvii. 39, properly,
according to the signification of the verb: "Shutting up,"
"restraining," "hindering." From what goes before, where the evils from
which the Servant of God is here delivered are described more in
detail, it appears that here we have not to think of a prison properly
so called; for there, it is not a prison, but abuse and oppression
which are spoken of.--[Hebrew: mwpT] is commonly referred to the
judgment which the enemies of the Servant of God passed upon Him, The
premised [Hebrew: ecr] then furnishes the distinct qualification of the
judgment, shows that that which, in a formal point of view, presents
itself as a judicial proceeding, is, in point of fact, heavy
oppression. But, at the same time, [Hebrew: mwpT] serves as a
limitation for [Hebrew: ecr]. We learn from it that the hatred of the
enemies moved within the limits of judicial proceedings,--just as it
happened in the history of Christ. But behind the human judgment, the
_divine_ is concealed, Jer. i. 16; Ezek. v. 8; Ps. cxliii. 2. This is
shown by what precedes, where the suffering of the Servant of God is so
emphatically and repeatedly designated as the punishment of sin
inflicted upon [Pg 290] Him by God.--[Hebrew: lqH] with [Hebrew: mN]
"to be taken away from;" according to _Stier_: "taken away from
suffering, being delivered from it by God's having taken Him to
himself, to the land of eternal bliss." This view, according to which
the words refer to the glorification of the Servant of God, has been
adopted by the Church. It is adopted by the Vulgate: "_De angustia
et judicio sublatus est_;" by _Jerome_, who says on this passage:
"From tribulation and judgment He ascended, as a conqueror, to the
Father;" and by _Michaelis_ who thus interprets it: "He was taken
away, and received at the right hand of the Majesty." By several
interpretations, the words are still referred to the state of
humiliation of the Servant of God: "_Through_ oppression and judgment
He was _dragged to execution_." But the Prophet has already, in ver. 3,
finished the description of the mere sufferings of the Servant of
God--vers. 4-7 exhibit the cause of His sufferings and His conduct
under them; [Hebrew: lqH] cannot, by itself, signify "to be dragged to
execution"--in that case, as in Prov. xxiv. 11, "to death" would have
been added; [Hebrew: mN] must be taken in the signification, "from,"
"out of," as in the subsequent [Hebrew: marC], compare 2 Kings iii. 9,
where [Hebrew: lqH] with [Hebrew: mN] signifies "to take from." In the
passage under consideration, as well as in those two passages which
refer to the ascension of Elijah, there is a distinct allusion to Gen.
v. 24, where it is said of Enoch: "And he was no more, for God had
_taken_ him."--_And His generation who can think it out?_ [Hebrew:
dvr], properly "circle," is not only the communion of those who are
connected by co-existence, but also of those who are connected by
disposition, be it good or bad.[6] Thus, the generation of the children
of God in Ps. lxxiii. 15; the generation of the righteous, Ps. xiv. 5;
the generation of the upright, in Ps. cxii. 2. Here, the generation of
the Servant of God is the communion of those who are animated by His
Spirit, filled with His life. This company will, after His death,
increase to an infinite greatness. [Hebrew: wvH] and [Hebrew: wiH] "to
meditate," is commonly connected with [Hebrew: b] of the object, but
occurs also with [Pg 291] the simple Accusative, in the signification
"to meditate upon something," in Ps. cxlv. 5. There is, as it appears,
an allusion to the promise to Abraham, Gen. xiii. 16: "And I make thy
seed as the dust of the earth, so that if a man can number the dust of
the earth, then shall thy seed also be numbered,"--a promise which
received its complete fulfilment just by the Servant of God. The
explanation which we have given was adopted by the LXX.: [Greek: ten
genean autou tis diegesetai.] Next to it, comes the explanation: "Who
can think out His _posterity_;" but against this, it is conclusive that
[Hebrew: dvr] never occurs in the signification "posterity." The
parallel passage in ver. 10: "He shall see seed," or "posterity," holds
good even for our view; for since the posterity is a _spiritual_ one,
it is substantially identical with _generation_ here. But it may, _a
priori_, be expected that the same thing shall be designated from
various aspects. If "generation" be taken in the signification
"posterity," then the words: "He shall see seed" would be a mere
repetition. The appropriateness of the sense which, according to our
explanation, comes out, will become especially evident, if we consider
that, in vers. 8-10, we have the carrying out of that which, in the
sketch, was said of the respectful homage of the many nations and
kings. A whole host of explanations assigns to [Hebrew: dvr]
significations which cannot be vindicated. Thus, the translation of
_Luther_: "Who shall disclose the length of His life?" that of
_Hitzig_: His destiny; that of _Beck_: His importance and influence in
the history of the world; that of _Knobel_: His dwelling place, _i.e._,
His grave, who considered? The signification, "dwelling place," does
not at all belong to [Hebrew: dvr]. In Isaiah xxxviii. 12, [Hebrew:
dvr] are the cotemporaries from whom the dying man is taken away, and
who are withdrawn from him: "My _generation_ is taken away, and removed
from me like a shepherd's tent"--dying Hezekiah there laments.
Inadmissible, likewise, is the explanation: "Who of His cotemporaries
will consider, or considered, it" for [Hebrew: at], the sign of the
Accusative, cannot stand before the _Nomin. Absol._ In Nehem. ix. 34,
this use is by no means certain, and, at all events, we cannot draw any
inference from the language of Nehemiah as to that of Isaiah. The
Ellipses: "the true cause of His death," "the importance and fruit of
His death," "the salvation lying behind it" (_Stier_), are very [Pg
292] hard, and the sense which is purchased by such sacrifices is
rather a common-place one, little suitable to this context, and to the
relation to chap. lii. 15.--"_For He was cut off from the land of the
living, for the transgression of my people, whose the punishment._" The
reason is here stated why the Servant of God receives so glorious a
reward; why, after He has been removed to God, a generation so
infinitely great is granted to Him. _He has deserved this reward by His
having suffered for the sins of His people, as their substitute._ The
first clause must not be separated from the second: "for the
transgression," &c. For it is not the circumstance, that the Servant of
God suffered a violent death at all, but that for the sin of His people
He took it upon Him, which is the ground of His glorification. [Hebrew:
ngzr] "to be cut off" never occurs of a quiet, natural death; not even
in the passage, quoted in support of this use of the word, viz., Psa.
lxxxviii. 6; Lam. iii. 54, but always of a violent, premature death.
The cognate [Hebrew: ngrz] also has, in Psa. xxxi. 23, the
signification of extermination. [Hebrew: lmv], poetical form for
[Hebrew: lhM], refers to the collective [Hebrew: eM]. Before it, the
relative pronoun is to be understood: for the sin of my people, whose
the punishment, _q.d._, whose property the punishment was, to whom it
belonged. _Stier_ prefers to adopt the most violent interpretation
rather than to conform and yield to this so simple sense, which, as he
says, could be entertained only by that obsolete theory of substitution
where one saves the other from suffering. Several interpreters take the
suffix in [Hebrew: lmv] as a Singular: "on account of the transgression
of my people, punishment was to Him." And passages, indeed, are not
wanting where the supposition that [Hebrew: mv] designates the
Singular, has some appearance of probability; but, upon a closer
examination, this appearance everywhere vanishes.[7] Moreover, as we
have already remarked, it is, on account of the sense, inadmissible to
separate the two clauses.--By [Hebrew: emi] "my people," the hypothesis
of the non-Messianic interpreters is set aside, that in [Pg 293] vers.
1-10 the _Gentiles_ are speaking. It is a single people to which the
speakers belong, the covenant-people, for whose benefit the atonement
and substitution of the Servant of God were, _in the first instance_,
intended (comp. [Greek: sosei ton laon hautou apo ton hamartion auton],
Matth. i. 21) yea, were, to a certain degree, exclusively intended,
inasmuch as the believing Gentiles were received into it as adopted
children. It is a forced expedient to say: every single individual of
the Gentiles, or of their princes, says that the Servant of God has
suffered for the sin of His people, hence also for His own. And just as
inadmissible is the supposition that a representative of the heathen
world is speaking; the whole heathen world cannot be designated as a
people.

Ver. 9. "_And they gave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich
in His death, because He had done no violence, neither was any deceit
in His mouth._"

[Hebrew: vitN] is intentionally without a definite Subject, _q.d._: it
was given to Him, _Ewald_ Sec. 273a. The acting subject could not be at
all more distinctly marked out, because there was a _double_ subject.
Men fixed for Him the ignominious grave with criminals; by the
providence of God, He received the honourable grave with a rich, and
that for the sake of His innocent sufferings, as a prelude to the
greater glorification which, as a reward, was to be bestowed upon Him,
as an example of what is said in ver. 12: "He shall divide spoil with
the strong." The _wicked_ who are buried apart from others, can be the
real criminals only, the transgressors in ver. 12. Criminals received,
among the Jews, an ignominious burial. Thus _Josephus_, Arch. iv. 8, Sec.
6, says: "He who has blasphemed God shall, after having been stoned, be
hung up for a day, and be buried quietly and without honour."
_Maimonides_ (see _Iken_ on this passage in the Biblia Hagana ii. 2)
says: "Those who have been executed by the court of justice are not by
any means buried in the graves of their ancestors; but there are two
graves appointed for them by the court of justice,--one for the stoned
and burnt; the other for the decapitated and strangled." Just as the
Prophet had, in the preceding verse, said that the Servant of God would
die a violent death like a criminal, so he says here, that they had
also fixed for Him a grave in common with executed criminals. _And with
a rich_ [Pg 294] (they gave Him His grave) _in His death_: they gave
Him His grave, first with the wicked; but, indeed, He received it with
a rich, since God's providence was watching over the dead body of His
Servant. [Hebrew: vitN], in so far as it refers to the first clause,
receives its limitation by the second. Before their fulfilment, the
words had the character of a holy riddle; but the fulfilment has solved
this riddle. The designation of Joseph of Arimathea as [Greek:
anthropos plousios] in Matt. xxvi. 57, is equivalent to an express
quotation. Although it was by a special divine providence that the
Singular was chosen, yet we may suppose that, in the first instance,
the rich man here is contrasted with the wicked men, and is an ideal
person, the personified idea of the species. _In His death_ is, in
point of fact, equivalent to: "after He had died;" but,
notwithstanding, there is no necessity for giving to the [Hebrew: b]
the signification "after." Death rather denotes the _condition of
death_; _in death_ is contrasted with: _in life_. Altogether in the
same manner we find in Lev. xi. 31: "Whosoever doth touch them in their
death," for, "after they have died." _Farther_--1 Kings xiii. 31: "In
my death you shall bury me in the sepulchre." The Plural [Hebrew:
mvtiM] "the deaths," "conditions of death," cannot be adduced as a
proof that the subject of the prophecy must be a collective person;
for, in that case, rather the Plural of the suffix would be required
(Ps. lxxviii. 64 is a rare exception); and in Ezek. xxviii. 8, 10,
death is likewise spoken of in the Plural. The Plural is formed after
the analogy of [Hebrew: HiiM], for which reason it commends itself to
explain [Hebrew: arC HiiM] in the preceding verse, "land of life,"
instead of "land of the living." But the Plural can here the less
occasion any difficulty, that it is not dying which is spoken of, but
the continuing condition of death.--_Because He had done no violence_,
&c. [Hebrew: el] very frequently denotes the cause upon which the
effect depends, _e.g._, in 1 Kings xvi. 7; Ps. xliv. 23, lxix. 8; Jer.
xv. 15; Job xxxiv. 6. The whole following clause is treated as a noun.
Ordinarily, it is explained: Although, &c. But this use of [Hebrew: el]
is quite isolated; it occurs only in two passages of the Book of Job,
in x. 7 and xxxiv. 6. The former explanation is found in the Alexand.
version: [Greek: hoti anomian ouk epoiese.] The innocence is designated
negatively, and in an external manner ( [Hebrew: Hms] and [Hebrew:
mrmh] are gross sins). The reason of this is [Pg 295] in the intention
of His enemies, which is expressed in the preceding words, to give Him
His grave with the wicked. Since He had not acted like them, God took
care that He did not receive their ignominious burial, but an
honourable one. In reference to the passage under consideration, it is
said in 1 Pet. ii. 22: [Greek: hos amartian ouk epoiese oude heurethe
dolos en to stomati autou]. Instead of "violence," Peter intentionally
employs "sin."--_Hofmann_ has advanced the following arguments against
the explanation which we have given. 1. "By what is this contrast
(which, according to our explanation, is contained in the words: They
gave Him His grave with the wicked, and with a rich man in His death)
to be recognized in the text? There remains no trace of a contrast,
unless it be contained in [Hebrew: rweiM] and [Hebrew: ewir]. Are these
really two ideas so contradictory, that they alone are sufficient to
bring into contrariety two clauses which have altogether the appearance
of being intended for the same purpose?" But in this argument,
_Hofmann_ overlooks the circumstance, that the wicked are specially
_criminals_--for they alone had a peculiar grave--and that it is not
the general relation of the wicked and rich to one another which comes
into consideration, but especially the relation in which they stand to
one another as regards the _burial_. If this be kept in view, it is at
once evident that the contrariety is expressed with sufficient
clearness. From Isa. xxii. 16; Job xxi. 32; Matt. xxvii. 57, it appears
that the rich man, and the honourable grave, are closely connected with
each other. Hence, it must have been by an opposite activity that to
the Servant of God a grave was assigned with the wicked, and with a
rich. 2. "To be rich is not in itself a sin which deserved an
ignominious burial, far less received it, but on the other hand, to
find his grave with a rich man is not an indemnification to the just
for the disgrace of having died the death of a criminal." But the fact
that the first Evangelist reports it so minutely (Matt. xxvii. 57-61)
clearly enough shows the importance of the circumstance; comp. also how
John, in chap. xix. 33 ff., points out the circumstance that Christ's
legs were not broken, as were those of the malefactors. In the little,
the great is prepared and prefigured. And although the burial with a
rich man is, in itself, of no small importance when viewed as the first
point where the exaltation [Pg 296] began--in the connection with the
preceding and following verses, we cannot but look upon it as being
symbolically significant and important. And how could it be otherwise,
since the burial of the Servant of God with a rich man implies that the
rich man himself has been gained for Him? It has, farther, been
objected that Christ was not buried _with_ Joseph, but in his grave
only, but in an ideal point of view _with_ has its full right. Comp.
chap. xiv. 19, where it is said to the king of Babylon: "But thou art
cast out of thy grave," although, bodily, he had not yet been in the
grave; but he had a right to come like his ancestors; he had, in an
ideal point of view, taken his place there.--_Beck_ says: "The orthodox
expositors are strongly embarrassed with these words." That is indeed a
remarkable interchange of positions. Embarrassment!--that is the sign
of everything which unscriptural exegesis advances on this verse. It is
concentrated in the [Hebrew: ewir]. The most varied conjectures and
freaks are here so many symptoms of helpless embarrassment. According
to the opinion of several interpreters, the rich man here stands in the
sense of the ungodly. In this, even _Luther_ (marginal note: "rich man,
one who in his doings founds himself on riches," _i.e._, an ungodly
man), and _Calvin_ had preceded them. The assertion that the rich, can
simply stand for the wicked, can neither be proved from Job xxvii. 19
(for there, according to the context, the rich is equivalent to "he who
is wicked, notwithstanding his riches"), nor from the word of the Lord
in Matt. xix. 23: [Greek: duskolos plousios eiseleusetai eis ten
basileian ton ouranon.] For that which, on a special occasion, the Lord
here says of the rich, applies to the poor also. Poverty, not less than
wealth, is encompassed with obstacles to conversion, which can be
removed only by the omnipotence of divine grace. According to Matt.
xiii. 22, the word is not only choked by the deceitfulness of riches,
but is as much so by care also, the dangers of which are particularly
set forth by our Lord in Matt. vi. 25 ff. In Prov. xxx. 8, 9 it is
said: "Give me neither poverty nor riches, lest I be full and deny
thee, and say: Where is the Lord? or lest I be poor and steal, and take
the name of my God in vain." The dangers of riches are more frequently
pointed out in Scripture than those of poverty; but this fact is
accounted for by the circumstance, that riches are surrounded [Pg 297]
with a glittering appearance, and that it is therefore necessary to
warn those who are apt to choose them for their highest good. _Stier_
rightly calls to mind the promise of earthly blessings to those who
fear God. But the circumstance must not be overlooked that the rich
comes here into consideration, chiefly as to his _burial_. The Prophet
would then not only proceed from the idea that all rich people are
wicked, but also would simply suppose that all the rich receive an
ignominious burial. But of that, the parable of the rich man in Luke
xvi. 22, knows nothing: [Greek: apethane de kai ho plousios kai
etaphe], according to his riches; it is in hell only that he receives
his reward. In opposition to _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_ remarks: "That
transition of the signification is a fable." Following the example of
_Martini_ he derives [Hebrew: ewir] from the Arabic. But in opposition
to that, _Gesenius_ again remarks in the _Thesaurus_: "_Sed haud
minoribus difficultatibus laborat ea ratio, qua improbitatis
significatum voluerunt Martinius et Hitzigius, collata nimirum radice_
[Hebrew: ewr] "_caespitavit_." _Tum enim haec radix nullam prorsum cum
verbo_ [Hebrew: ewr] _necessitudinem habet, ita ut_ [Hebrew: ewir] _h.
l._ [Greek: ap. leg.] _esset; tum caespitandi vis nusquam ad peccatum,
licet ad fortunam adversam, translata est._" If, with words of such
frequent occurrence, it were allowable to search in the dialects, the
business of the expounder would be a very ungrateful one. Nor does the
form, which is commonly passive, favour this interpretation. According
to _Beck_, [Hebrew: ewir] is another form for [Hebrew: eriC]. Others
would change the reading. _Ewald_ proposes [Hebrew: ewiq]; Boettcher,
[Hebrew: ewi re]. Against all those conjectures, moreover, the
circumstance militates, that, according to them, the verse would still
belong to the humiliation of the Servant of God; whereas the
description of the glorification had already begun in the preceding
verse. For [Hebrew: bmvtiv] "in His death," _Gesenius_ and others
propose to read [Hebrew: bmvtiv], to which they assign the
signification "His tomb-hill." But, altogether apart from this
arbitrary change of the vowels, there is opposed to this conjecture the
circumstance, that [Hebrew: bmh] never occurs of the grave. According
to _Gesenius_, [Hebrew: bmvt], in Ezek. xliii. means "tombs;" but the
common signification "high places," must be retained there also. In a
spiritual point of view the sanctuaries of the Lord had become "high
places."

Ver. 10. "_And the Lord was pleased painfully to crush_ [Pg 298] _Him:
when His soul hath given restitution, He shall see seed, He shall
prolong His days, and the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper through
His hand._"

_And the Lord was pleased_--This pleasure of the Lord is not such an
one as proceeds from caprice. The ground on which it rests has already
been minutely exhibited in what precedes. By the vicarious influence of
this suffering, peace is to be acquired for mankind; and since this
object is based upon the divine nature, upon God's mercy, the choice of
the means also, by which alone it could be attained (for, without a
violation of the divine character, sin could not remain unpunished),
must be traced to the divine character. _Here_ the ground on which the
pleasure rests is stated in the words immediately following,--a
connection which is clearly indicated by the obvious relation in which
the [Hebrew: HpC ihvh] of the close stands to [Hebrew: ihvh HpC] of the
beginning; so that the sense is: It was the pleasure, &c., and this for
the purpose that, after having made an offering for sin, He should see
seed, &c. Hence the pleasure of the Lord has this in view:--that the
will of the Lord should be realized, His Servant glorified, and the
salvation of mankind promoted. _Painfully to crush Him._ [Hebrew: Hlh]
"to be sick," "to suffer pains." In this sense the _Niphal_ occurs in
Amos vi. 6, and the participle [Hebrew: nHlh] in the signification
"painful," "grievous," in Nah. iii. 19; Jer. xiv. 17, and other
passages, In _Hiphil_ it means: "to make painful," Mic. vi. 13. The
common explanation, "The Lord was pleased to crush Him, He has made Him
sick," has this against it, that Copula and Suffix are wanting in
[Hebrew: hHli], and that the word would come in unconnected, and in a
very disagreeable manner. And then the passage in Micah, which we have
quoted, decides against it.--_When His soul hath given restitution._
There cannot be any doubt that, in a formal point of view, it is the
soul which gives restitution. _Knobel's_ explanation: "His soul gives
itself," is not countenanced by the _usus loquendi_; [Hebrew: wiM] is
not a reflective verb. As little can we suppose with _Hofmann_ that
[Hebrew: twiM] is the second person, and an address to Jehovah. In
opposition to this view, there is not only the circumstance that
Jehovah is spoken _of_ before and afterwards, but, in a material point
of view, the circumstance also, that offerings for sin, and, generally,
all sacrifices, were never offered up _by_ God, [Pg 299] but always
_to_ God. The fact also, that according to the sequel, the Servant of
God receives the reward for His meritorious work, proves that it is He
who offers up the sacrifice. But, on the other hand, it is, in point of
fact, the soul only which can be the _offering_, the _restitution_;
for it could scarcely be imagined that, just here, that should be
omitted on which everything mainly depends. It is sufficiently evident,
from what precedes, _who_ it is that offers the restitution; what
the restitution was, it was necessary distinctly to point out.
_Farther_--In the case of sacrifices, it is just the soul upon which
every thing  depends; so that if the soul be mentioned in a context
which treats of sacrifices, it is, _a priori_, probable that it will be
the object offered up. In Lev. xvii. 11, it is said: "For the soul of
the flesh is in the blood, and I give it to you upon the altar, to
atone for your souls, for it is the blood that maketh an atonement for
the soul," viz., by the soul "_per animam, vi animae in eo sanguine
constantis_" (_Gussetius_).[8] The soul, when thus considered as the
passive object, is here therefore in a high degree in its proper place;
and there can the less be any doubt of its occurring here in this
sense, that it occurs twice more in vers. 11 and 12, of the natural
psychical life of the Servant of God, which was given up to suffering
and death. But, on the other hand, if the soul be considered as the
active object, it stands here at all events rather idle,--a
circumstance which is sufficiently apparent from the supposition of
several interpreters, that [Hebrew: npw] "soul," stands here simply for
the personal pronoun,--"His soul," for "He," a _usus loquendi_ which
occurs in Arabic, but not in Hebrew. And, strictly speaking, the
offering of the sacrifice does not belong to the soul, but to the
spirit of the Servant of God, compare Heb. ix. 14, according to which
passage, Christ [Greek: dia pneumatos aioniou heauton prosenenken
amomon to Theo]; and on the subject of the difference between soul and
spirit, compare my Commentary on Ps. iv. p. lxxxvii. But how will it
now be possible to reconcile and harmonize [Pg 300] our two results,
that, in a formal point of view, the soul is that which offers up, and,
in a material point of view, that which is offered up? By the
hypothesis that, _in a rhetorical way of speaking, that is here
assigned to the soul as an action which, in point of fact, is done upon
it._ All that is necessary is to translate: "If His soul puts or gives
a trespass-offering;" for, "to put," stands here, as it does so
frequently, in the sense of "to give," compare Ezek. xx. 28, where it
is used in this sense in reference to sacrifice. But, in point of fact,
this is equivalent to: "If it is made a trespass-offering," or, "If He,
the Servant of God, offers it as a trespass-offering." It is analogous
to this when, in Job xiv. 22, the soul of the deceased laments; and a
cognate mode of representation prevails in Rev. vi. 9, where, to the
souls of the slain, life is assigned for the sole purpose of their
giving utterance to that which was the result of the thought regarding
them, in combination with the circumstances of the time. To a certain
degree analogous is also chap. lx. 7, where it is said of the
sacrificial animals: "They ascend, for my pleasure, mine altar." The
fact that it is in reality the soul which is offered up, is confirmed
also by the remarkable reference to the passage before us in the
discourses of our Lord. Our Lord says in John x. 12: [Greek: ego eimi
ho poimen ho kalos. ho poimen ho kalos ten chuchen hautou tithesin
huper ton probaton.] Ver. 15: [Greek: kai ten chuchen mou tithemi huper
ton probaton.] Vers. 17, 18: [Greek: dia touto ho pater me agapa, hoti
ego tithemi ten psuchen mou hina palin labo auten. Oudeis airei auten
ap'emou, all'ego tithemi auten ap'emautou. exousian echo theinai
auten, kai exousian echo palin labein auten.] In John xv. 13: [Greek:
meizona tautes agapen oudeis echei hina tis ten psuchen autou the huper
philon hautou.] The expression: "To put one's soul for some one," does
not, independently and by itself, occur anywhere else in the New
Testament; in John xiii. 37, 38, Peter takes the word out of the mouth
of the Saviour, and in 1 John iii. 16, it is used in reference to those
declarations of our Lord. The expression is nowhere met with in any
profane writers, nor in the Hellenistic _usus loquendi_. The following
reasons prove that it refers to the Old Testament, and especially to
the passage under consideration. 1. Its Hebraizing character. _De
Wette_ and _Luecke_ erroneously take [Greek: theinai] in the sense of
laying down; but that is too negative. It is evident that the Hebraism
"to put," instead of "to give," has been [Pg 301] transferred into
Greek, as is proved by the synonymous [Greek: dounai ten psuchen
hautou] in Mark x. 45; Matt. xx. 28.--2. The fact that the same
uncommon expression occurs not fewer than five times in the same
discourse of Christ, and that so intentionally and emphatically, is
explicable only when it was thereby intended to point to an important
fundamental passage of the Old Testament.--3. In the discourses of our
Lord, the expression is, no less than in the passage before us, used of
His sacrificial death.--If, then, it be established that those passages
in which our Lord speaks of a _putting_ of His soul, refer to the
passage under consideration, this must be acknowledged of those also in
which He speaks of a _giving_ of His soul, as in Matt. xx. 28: [Greek:
dounai ten psuchen hautou lutron anti pollon], where the [Greek:
lutron] clearly points to the [Hebrew: awM] here. In all those
utterances, the Saviour simply has reduced the words to what they
signify, just as, in quoting the passage Zech. xiii. 7, in Matt. xxvi.
31, He likewise drops the rhetorical figure, the address to the sword.
He himself appears simply as He who offers up; the soul is that which
is offered up.--[Hebrew: awM] is, in Numb. v. 5, called that of
which some one has unjustly robbed another, and which he is bound
to _repay_ to him. An essential feature of sin is the _robbing of
God_ which is thereby committed, the debt thereby incurred, which
implies the necessity of _recompence_. All sin-offerings are, in
the Mosaic economy, at the same time debt-offerings; and this feature
is very intentionally and emphatically pointed out in them. If,
besides the sin-offerings, there is still established a kind of
trespass-offerings, the [Hebrew: awM], for sins in which the idea of
incurring a debt comes out with special prominence, this is done only
with the view, that this feature, thus brought forward by itself and
independently, may be so much the more deeply impressed, in order that,
in the other sin-offerings too, it may be the more clearly perceived.
Compare the investigation on the sin-offerings and trespass-offerings
in my work on the _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, ii. p. 174 ff. But
the sin- and trespass-offerings of the Old Testament typically point to
a true spiritual sin- and trespass-offering; and their chief object was
to awaken in the people of God the consciousness of the necessity of
substitution (compare my Book: _Die Opfer der Heil. Schrift_, Berlin
1852). This antetypical sacrifice will be offered up by the true
High-Priest. For the sins of the human race which [Pg 302] without
compensation, cannot be forgiven, He furnishes the restitution which
could not be paid by the sinners, and thereby works out the
justification of the sinner before God.--To the trespass-offering here,
all those passages of the New Testament point, in which Christ is
spoken of as the sacrifice for our sins, especially 2 Cor. v. 21, where
the apostle says that God made Christ to be [Greek: hamartia] for us,
that in Him we might be made righteous before God; Rom. viii. 3,
according to which God sent Christ [Greek: peri hamartias], as a
sin-offering; Rom. iii. 25, where Christ is called [Greek:
hilasterion], propitiation; 1 John ii. 2: [Greek: kai autos hilasmos
esti peri ton hamartion hemon], iv. 10; Heb. ix. 14.--The [Hebrew: aM]
at the beginning must not be explained by "_as_" a signification,
which it never has; it has its ordinary signification "when," and the
Future is to be understood as a real Future: the offering of the
trespass-offering is the _condition_ of His seeing, &c., and, according
to the context, indeed, the absolutely _necessary_ condition. The
translation: "Even if" could proceed from one only who had not
understood this context. It is not death in general, but sacrificial
death, which is specially spoken of; and to such a death, which is a
necessary foundation of the glorification, and especially the
foundation of "He shall see seed," "when" only is suitable, and not
"even if."--In the words: "He shall see seed, prolong His days," that
is, in a higher sense, promised to this Servant of God, which, under
the Old Testament, was considered as a distinguished divine blessing.
The spiritual interpretation has the less difficulty, that it must
necessarily be granted in the case of [Hebrew: awM], immediately
preceding. Just in the same relation in which the sin-offering of the
Servant of God stands to the sin-offering of the bullocks and goats,
does His posterity, the length of His days, stand to the ordinary
posterity and length of days. The _seed_ of the Servant of God,
identical with His generation, in ver. 8, are just those for whom,
according to the words immediately preceding, He offers His soul as a
trespass-offering--the many who, according to ver. 12, are assigned to
Him as His portion; who, according to chap. lii. 15, are to be
sprinkled by Him; who, according to ver. 11, are to be justified by
Him; they whose sins He has taken upon Him (ver. 5), and for whom He
intercedes before God, ver. 12. Even in the Old Testament, the word
"children" is frequently used in a spiritual [Pg 303] sense. In Gen.
vi. 2, believers appear as the children of God. The Israelites are not
unfrequently designated as sons of Jehovah. Those prophets who were
endowed with specially rich gifts, were surrounded by a crowd of _sons_
of the prophets. The wise man, too, looks upon his disciples as his
spiritual sons, Prov. iv. 20, xix. 27; Eccles. xii. 12. In the New
Testament, the Lord addresses the man sick of the palsy by [Greek:
teknon]. Matt. ix. 2; and with special emphasis. His apostles as
_little children_, [Greek: teknia eti mikron meth'humon eimi], John
xiii. 33; and the Apostles, too, consider those who have been awakened
by their ministry as their spiritual children, 1 Cor. iv. 17; 1 Tim. i.
2; 1 Pet. v. 13. _The thought is this--that in the sacrificial death of
the Servant of God there will be an animating power; that, just
thereby, He will found His Church._ The words: "He shall prolong His
days," allude, as it appears, to the promise which was given to David
and his seed, comp. Ps. xxi 5: "He asked life of thee, and thou gavest
it to him, even length of days for ever and ever;" 1 Sam. vii. 13: "I
will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever," comp. ver. 16; Ps.
lxxxix. 5, cxxxii. 12,--a promise which found its final fulfilment in
Christ. But the long life here must not be viewed as _isolated_, but
must be understood in close connection both with what precedes and what
follows. It is the life of the Servant of God in communion with His
seed, in carrying out the will of God. [Hebrew: HpC] never means
"business," but always "pleasure;" and this signification, which occurs
in chap. xliv. 28 also, is here the less to be given up, that the
[Hebrew: HpC] here, at the close, evidently refers to the [Hebrew: HpC]
at the beginning. By this reference, the reason is stated why it was
the _pleasure_ of the Lord to crush Him. According to vers. 11 and 12,
it is the pleasure of God that sinners should be justified through Him,
on the foundation of His vicarious suffering; according to chap. xlii.
and xlix., that Israel should be redeemed, and the Gentiles saved.
While the pleasure of the Lord is prospering through His hand, he, at
the same time, sees seed.

In vers. 11 and 12, we have the closing words of the Lord.

Ver. 11. "_On account of the sufferings of His soul He seeth, He is
satisfied; by His knowledge He, the Righteous One, my Servant, shall
justify the many, and He shall bear their iniquities._"

[Pg 304]

The [Hebrew: mN] in [Hebrew: meml] is "on account of." In ver. 10, to
which the discourse of the Lord is, in the first instance, connected,
the suffering likewise appears as the cause of the glorification. The
Vulgate translates: "_Pro eo quod laboravit anima ejus_;" the LXX.
rather feebly: [Greek: apo tou ponou tes psuches autou]. With [Hebrew:
irah] the object is omitted, and that purposely, in order that the
words of God may be immediately connected with ver. 10. We must supply:
the fruits and rewards of His sufferings announced there (just as, in a
manner quite similar, in chap. xlix. 7, "they shall see," refers to the
preceding verse), specially that the pleasure of the Lord shall prosper
through His hand,--which, in the sequel, is enlarged upon. The words:
"He is satisfied," point out that the blissful consequences of the
atoning suffering will take place in the highest fulness. [Hebrew:
bdetv] must, according to the accents, be connected with the subsequent
words. The knowledge does not belong to the Servant of God, in so far
as it dwells in Him, but as it concerns Him; just as the [Greek: agape
tou Theou] in Luke xi. 42, and in other passages does not mean the love
which dwells in God, but the love which has God for its object. "By His
knowledge" is thus equivalent to: by their knowing Him, getting
acquainted with Him, This knowledge of the Servant of God according to
His principal work, as it was described in what precedes, viz.,
mediatorial office, or _faith_, is the subjective condition of
justification. As the efficient cause of it, the vicarious suffering of
the Servant of God was represented in the preceding context. It is just
this, which is subjectively appropriated by the knowledge of the
Servant of God, and which must be conceived of as essential and living.
Thus _J. H. Michaelis_ says: _Per scientiam sui_ (_Clericus_:
_Cognitione sui_), _non qua ipse cognoscit, sed qua vera fide et
fiducia ipse tanquam propitiator cognoscitur._ The explanation: "By His
knowledge (in the sense of understanding) or wisdom," gives a sense
unsuitable to the context. In the whole prophecy, the Servant of God
does not appear as a Teacher, but as a Redeemer; and the relation of
[Hebrew: cdiq] to [Hebrew: hcdiq] shows that here, too, He is
considered as such. To supply, as is done by some interpreters: "in
which (knowledge) He perceived the only possible means of redemption
and reconciliation, and gave practical effect to this knowledge," is,
after all, too unnatural; the [Pg 305] discourse would in that case be
so incomplete that we should have been shut up to conjectures. Others
translate: "By His doctrine;" but [Hebrew: det] never means "doctrine."
The explanation: "By His full, absolute knowledge of the divine
counsel" (_Haevernick_), or, "by the absolute knowledge of God"
(_Umbreit_), puts into the simple word, which only means "knowledge,"
more than is implied in it. According to the parallelism with the
subsequent words: "He shall bear their iniquities." and according to
the context (for, in the whole section, the Servant of God is not
described as a _Teacher_, but as a _Priest_, as He who, in order to
expiate our sin, has offered himself up as a sacrifice), [Hebrew:
hcdiq] must not be translated "to convert," but to "justify." In favour
of this translation is also the construction with [Hebrew: l], which is
to be accounted for from a modification of the signification: "to bring
righteousness." But it is specially the position of [Hebrew: cdiq]
which is decisive in favour of it. It is for the justification only
that the personal righteousness of the Servant of God has that
significant meaning which is, in this manner, assigned to it. Moreover,
in the _usus loquendi_, the meaning _to justify_ only occurs. In it,
the verb is used, chap. v. 23, l. 8; and there is no reason for
deviating from it in the only passage which can be adduced in favour of
the signification "to convert," viz., Dan. xii. 3: "And the wise,
[Hebrew: mwkiliM], shall shine as the brightness of the firmament, and
_justify_ many as the stars, for ever and ever." In this passage, that
is applied to believers which, in chap. liii., was ascribed to Christ.
Even a certain strangeness in the style makes us suppose such a
transference; and the fact, that Daniel had our passage specially in
view, cannot be doubted, if we compare the [Hebrew: mwkiliM] of Daniel
with the [Hebrew: iwkil] with which the prophecy under consideration
opens (chap, lii, 13), and Daniel's: "justify many," with the passage
before us. The justification, which in its full sense belongs to Christ
the Head only, is by Daniel ascribed to the "wise," because they are
the instruments through whom many attain justification; _Calvin_: _Quia
causa sunt ministerialis justitiae et salutis multorum._ _Haevernick_
refers, for a comparison, to 1 Tim. iv. 16: "For, in doing this, thou
shalt save both thyself and them that hear thee." [Hebrew: ediq] must
not be immediately connected with [Hebrew: ebdi]; for, in that case, it
ought to have stood after it, and been qualified [Pg 306] by the
article. On the contrary, [Hebrew: ediq] stands first, because it
stands by itself and substantively: "The righteous One, My Servant." A
similar construction occurs, Jer. iii., vii. 10: "And she does not turn
unto me, the treacherous one, [Hebrew: bgirh], her sister Judah." By
thus making [Hebrew: cdiq] prominent, and connecting it immediately
with [Hebrew: hcdiq], it is intended to point out the close connection
in which the righteousness of the Servant of God, who, although
altogether innocent and sinless, ver. 9, yet suffered the punishment of
sin, stands with the justification to be bestowed by Him. _Maurer_ thus
pertinently expresses this: "To many, for righteous is my Servant,
shall He procure righteousness." By these words thus the [Hebrew: izh],
in chap. lii. 15, is explained; and the seal of the divine confirmation
is impressed upon that which, in vers. 4-6, the believing Church had
said, especially upon the words: "By His wounds we are healed," ver. 5.
The "many" points back to chap. liii. 15, and forms the contrast not to
_all_ (_Stier_: "Because He cannot, overturning all laws, save all by
coercion, or arbitrary will,"--a limitation which would in this context
be out of place), but to _few_: The one, the many, Rom. v. 15.--"And He
shall bear their iniquities;" the iniquities and their punishment, as a
heavy burden which the Servant of God lifts off from those who are
groaning under their weight, and takes upon himself _Jerome_ says: "And
He himself shall bear the iniquities which they could not bear, and by
the weight of which they were borne down." _Calvin_ expresses himself
thus: "A wonderful change indeed! Christ justifies men by giving them
His righteousness, and in exchange. He takes upon Him their sins, that
He may expiate them." In opposition to those who translate: "He _bore_
their iniquities," (the Future might, in that case, he accounted for
from the Prophet's viewing the whole transaction as present), even
_Gesenius_ has remarked that the preceding and subsequent Futures all
refer to the state of glorification. Even the parallelism with [Hebrew:
icdiq] shows that we must translate as the LXX. do: [Greek: kai tas
hamartias auton autos anoisei]. Moreover, the subject of discourse in
the whole verse is not the _acquiring_ of the righteousness, which was
done in the state of humiliation, but the _communication_ of it, as the
subjective condition of which the knowledge of the Servant of God was
mentioned in the preceding clause. [Pg 307] In the case of every one
who, after the exaltation of the Servant of God, fulfils this
condition, He takes upon Himself their sins, _i.e._, He causes His
vicarious suffering to be imputed to them, and grants them pardon. The
expression: "He shall bear their iniquities" is, in point of fact,
identical with: "He shall _justify_ them." The Servant of God has borne
the sin once for all; by the power of His substitution, effected by the
shedding of His blood, He takes upon himself the sins of every
individual who _knows_ Him. The "taking away" is implied in [Hebrew:
vsbl] in so far only, as it is done by _bearing_. It was only because
he was misled by his rationalistic tendencies, that _Gesenius_
explains: "And He lightens the burden of their sins, _i.e._, by His
doctrine He shall correct them, and thereby procure to them pardon." By
such an explanation he contradicts himself, inasmuch as, in ver. 4, he
referred the bearing of the diseases and pains to the vicarious
satisfaction. It cannot, in any way, be said of the Teacher, that he
takes upon himself iniquities.

Ver. 12. "_Therefore will I give Him a portion in the many, and He
shall divide the spoil with the strong, because He hath poured out His
soul unto death and was numbered with the transgressors, and He beareth
the sin of many, and for the transgressors He shall make
intercession._"

The first words are thus explained by many interpreters: "Therefore I
will give Him mighty ones for His portion, and strong ones He shall
divide as a spoil." But [Hebrew: Hlq] with [Hebrew: b] cannot mean
simply "to allot," (although, indeed, this explanation is given by the
LXX.; [Greek: dia touto autos kleronomesei pollous]; Vulg.: _ideo
dispertiam ei plurimos_); it only signifies "to give a portion in," Job
xxxix. 17. From the comparison with [Hebrew: rbiM] in ver. 11 and at
the close of this verse, as well as from the reference to the _many
nations_ in the sketch, ver. 15, it is evident that [Hebrew: rbiM]
here, too, cannot mean "mighty ones," but "many." Even elsewhere, the
signification "great ones," "mighty ones," appears oftentimes to be
only forced upon [Hebrew: rbiM]. In Job xxxv. 9, the "many" are the
many evil-doers; and in Job xxxii. 9, the utterance: "Not the _many_
are wise," is explained from the circumstance, that the view given by
Job's friends was that of the great mass. The fact that the [Hebrew:
at] in the second clause is not the sign of the Accusative, but a
Preposition, [Pg 308] is probable even from the circumstance, that the
former [Hebrew: at] commonly stands before qualified nouns only; and,
farther from the corresponding; "with the transgressors." But what is
conclusive is, that the phrase [Hebrew: Hlq wll] always means "to
divide spoil," never "to distribute as spoil," and that the phrase
[Hebrew: Hlq wll at gaiM] "to divide spoil with the proud" occurs in
Prov. xvi. 19. The reason of the use of this expression lies in the
reference to ordinary victors and conquerors of the world, especially
to Cyrus. By His sufferings and death, the Servant of God shall secure
to himself the same successes as they do by sword and bow. Although
participating in the government of the world, and dividing spoil are
here ascribed to the Servant of God, yet the participation in worldly
triumphs is not spoken of On the contrary, behind the _equality_ which
has given rise to the secular-looking expression (the thought is merely
this, that through Christ and His sacrificial death, the Kingdom of God
enters into the rank of world-conquering powers), a contrast lies
concealed,--as appears, 1. From what is stated, in the preceding
verses, about the manner in which the Servant of God has attained to
this glory. Worldly triumphs are not acquired by the deepest
_humiliation_, by sufferings and death voluntarily undergone for the
salvation of mankind. 2. From that which the Servant of God, in the
state of glory, is to do to those who turn to Him. According to chap.
lii. 15, He is to sprinkle them with His blood; and this sprinkling is
there expressly stated as the reason of the reverential homage of the
Gentile world. He is to justify them and to bear their sins, ver. 11,
and to make intercession for them, ver. 12. All that does not apply to
a worldly conqueror and ruler.--The merits of the Servant of God are
then once more pointed out,--the merits by which He has acquired so
exalted and all-important a position to himself, and, at the same time,
to the Kingdom of God, of which He is the Head. "Because He hath poured
out His soul unto death," [Hebrew: erh] in the _Niphal_, "to be poured
out," means in _Piel_ "to pour out," Gen. xxiv. 20, and Ps. cxli. 8,
where it is said of the soul: "Do not pour out my soul," just as here
the _Hiphil_ is used. The term has been transferred to the _soul_ from
the _blood_, in which is the soul. Gen. ix. 4: "Flesh with its soul
(namely with its blood) you shall not eat." Ver. 5: "Your blood in [Pg
309] which your souls." [Hebrew: nmnh], "He was numbered," is here,
according to the context, equivalent to: He caused himself to be
numbered; for it is only that which was undergone voluntarily which can
be stated as the reason of the _reward_. This voluntary undergoing,
however, is not implied in the word itself, but only in the connection
with: "He hath poured out His soul;" for that signifies a voluntary
act. The [Hebrew: pweiM] here, just as the [Hebrew: rweiM] in ver. 9,
are not sinners, but criminals. This appears from the connection in
which the being "numbered with the transgressors" stands with the
"pouring out of the soul unto death." We can hence think of executed
criminals only. The pure, innocent One was not only numbered with
sinners, such as all men are, but He was numbered with _criminals_. It
is in this sense also that our Lord understands the words, in His
quotation of them in Luke xxii. 37: [Greek: lego gar humin, hoti heti
touto to gegrammenon dei telesthenai en emoi, to. kai meta anomon
elogisthe, kai gar ta peri emou telos echei]; Compare Matt. xxvi. 54,
where the Lord strengthens His disciples against the offence of His
being taken a prisoner, by saying, with a view to the passage before
us: [Greek: pos oun plerothosin hai graphai, hoti houto dei genesthai];
ver. 56, where, after having reproached the guards for having numbered
Him with criminals: [Greek: hos epi lesten exelthete meta machairon kai
xulon sullabein me], He says to them: [Greek: touto de holon gegonen
hina plerothosin hai graphai ton propheton]. Mark, in chap. xv. 28,
designates the fact that two robbers were crucified with Christ, as the
most perfect fulfilment of our prophecy. It was in this fact that it
came out most palpably, that Christ had been made like criminals. The
rulers of the people caused two common criminals to be crucified with
Him, just that they might declare that they put Him altogether among
their number.--"And He beareth the sin of many, and for the
transgressors He shall make intercession." By [Hebrew: vhva], it is
indicated that the subsequent words are no more to be viewed as
depending on [Hebrew: tHt awr].--[Hebrew: ipgie] must not, as is done
by the LXX., be referred to the state of humiliation; for the Future in
the preceding verses has reference to the exaltation. The parallel
[Hebrew: nwa] must therefore be viewed as a _Praeteritum propheticum_.
It corresponds with [Hebrew: isbl] in ver. 11, and, like it, does not
designate something done but once by the Servant of God, but something
which He does constantly. The intercession is [Pg 310] here brought
into close connection with the bearing of the sin, by which Christ
represents himself as being the true _sin-offering_ (comp. ver. 10,
where He was designated as the true _trespass-offering_), and hence it
is equivalent to: He will make intercession for sinners, by taking upon
himself their sin,--of which the thief on the cross was the first
instance. This close connection, and the deep meaning suggested by it,
are overlooked and lost by those expositors who, in the intercession,
think of prayer only. _The servant of God, on the contrary, makes
intercession, by pleading before God His merit, as the ground of the
acceptance of the transgressors, and of the pardon of their sins._ This
is evident from the connection also in which: "For the transgressors He
shall make intercession," stands with: "He was numbered with the
transgressors." The vicarious suffering is thereby pointed out as the
ground of the intercession. _Calvin_ says: "Under the Old Testament
dispensation, the High-priest, who never went in without blood, made
intercession for the people. What was there foreshadowed has been
fulfilled in Christ. For, in the first place. He offered up the
sacrifice of His body, and shed His blood, and thus suffered the
punishment due to us. And, in the second place, in order that the
expiation might profit us. He undertakes the office of an advocate, and
makes intercession for all who, by faith, lay hold of this sacrifice."
Comp. Rom. viii. 34: [Greek: hos kai entunchanei huper hemon]; Hebr.
ix. 24, according to which passage Christ is entered into the holy
places [Greek: nun emphanisthenai to prosopo tou Theou huper hemon]; 1
John ii. 1: [Greek: parakleton echomen pros ton patera Iesoun Christon
dikaion].


                           * * * * * * * * * *


We have hitherto expounded the passage before us without any regard to
the difference of the interpretation as to the whole, and have supposed
the reference to Christ to be the correct one. But it is still
incumbent upon us: I. to give the history of the interpretation; II.
to refute the arguments against the Messianic interpretation; III. to
state the arguments in favour of it; and IV. to show that the
non-Messianic interpretation is untenable.



[Footnote 1: One needs only to consider passages such as this, to be
enabled to distinguish between the ideal and real Present, and to be
convinced of the utter futility of the chief argument against the
genuineness of the second part, viz., that the Babylonish exile appears
as present. "Proceeding from the certainty of deliverance"--so _Hitzig_
remarks--"the Prophet here _beholds_ in spirit that going on, to which,
in chap. xl. 9, he exhorts." If the Prophet beholds at all in the
spirit, why should he not see in spirit the misery also?]

[Footnote 2: _Simonis. Onom._: [Hebrew: izih], _quem aspergat_, _i.e._,
_purificet et expiet Domimus_; _Gesenius_: _quod vix aliter explicari
potest quam_: _quem consperget_, _i.e._, _expiabit Jehova._ _Fuerst_
gives a different derivation; but it at once shows itself to be
untenable.]

[Footnote 3: In order to defend this explanation, interpreters have
referred to the LXX: [Greek: houto thaumasontai ethne polla ep'auto];
but even _Martini_ remarks: "From a dark passage, they have tried, by
ingenious conjecturing, to bring out any sense whatsoever."]

[Footnote 4: Thus _Theodoret_ says: "For they who did not receive the
prophetic promises and announcements, but served idols, shall, through
the messengers of the truth, see the power of the promised One, and
perceive His greatness." _Jerome_: "The rulers of the world, who had
not the Law and the Prophets, and to whom no prophecies concerning Him
were given, even they shall see and perceive. By the comparison with
them, the hardness of the Jews is reproved, who, although they saw and
heard, yet verified Isaiah's prophecy against them." _Calvin_: "The
Jews had, through the Law and the Prophets, heard something of Christ,
but to the Gentiles He was altogether unknown. Hence it follows that
these words properly refer to the Gentiles."]

[Footnote 5: According to _Knobel_, the author is supposed to speak, in
chap. liii. 1, in his own name and that of the other prophets; in vers.
2-6, in the name of the whole people; in vers. 7-10, in his own name.
An explanation which is compelled to resort to such changes, without
their being in any way clearly and distinctly intimated, pronounces its
own condemnation.]

[Footnote 6: _Gesenius_: _Neglecta actatis notione saepe est genus
hominum, in bonam partem--in malam partem_;--and in reference to the
passage under consideration: _Genus ejus, Servi Jehovae, sunt homines
qui iisdem cum illo studiis tenentur._ In the same manner it is
explained by _Maurer_, who refers to Ps. xiv. 5, xxiv. 6.]

[Footnote 7: The double [Hebrew: lmv] in Deut. xxxiii. 2 refers to
Israel, not to God. In reference to the [Hebrew: lmv] in Is. xliv. 15,
_J. H. Michaelis_ remarks: _iis talibus diis._ ver. 7. But the suffix
rather refers to the trees, ver. 14; comp. [Hebrew: mhM] in ver. 15. If
construed thus, the sense is much more expressive. In Job xxii. 2,
[Hebrew: mwkil] is used collectively. In Ps. xi. 7, the plural suffix
is to be explained from the richness and fulness of the Divine Being.
These are all the passages which _Ewald_ quotes in Sec. 247 d.]

[Footnote 8: Thus _Baehr_, _Symbolik_, ii. S. 207, says: It is not the
material elements of the blood which make it a means of expiation, but
it is the [Hebrew: npw] which is connected with it, which is in it,
whose instrument and bearer it is, which gives to it atoning power. The
[Hebrew: npw] is thus the centre around which, in the last instance,
everything moves. This is especially confirmed by the circumstance,
that the object of the expiation to be effected by the [Hebrew: npw] in
the sacrificial blood, is, according to this passage, the [Hebrew: npw]
of him who offers up the sacrifice.]



[Pg 311]



                    I. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION.


                           A. WITH THE JEWS.

1. There cannot be any doubt that, in those earlier times, when the
Jews were still more firmly attached to the tradition of their
Fathers,--when the carnal disposition had not yet become so entirely
prevalent among them,--and when controversy with the Christians had not
made them so narrow-minded in their Exegesis, the Messianic explanation
was pretty generally received, at least by the better portion of the
people. This is admitted even by those later interpreters who pervert
the prophecy, _e.g._, _Abenezra_, _Jarchi_, _Abarbanel_, _Moses
Nachmanides_. _Gesenius_ also says: "It was only the later Jews who
abandoned this interpretation,--no doubt, in consequence of their
controversies with the Christians." We shall here collect, from the
existing Jewish writings, the principal passages in which this
interpretation occurs. The whole translation of the Chaldee Paraphrast,
_Jonathan_, notwithstanding the many perversions in which he indulges,
refers the prophecy to Christ. He paraphrases the very first clause:
[Hebrew: ha iclH ebdi mwiha] "behold my Servant Messiah shall prosper."
The _Medrash Tanchuma_, an old commentary on the Pentateuch (ed.
Cracov. f. 53, c. 3, l. 7), remarks on the words: [Hebrew: hnh iwkil
ebdi] (ed. Cracov. f. 53, c. 3, l. 7): [Hebrew: hmwiH irvM vgbh vnwa
mavd vriM mN abrhM vnwa mmwh vgdh mN mlaki hwrt zh mlK] ("this is the
King Messiah who is high and lifted up, and very exalted, more exalted
than Abraham, elevated above Moses, higher than the ministering
angels"). This passage is remarkable for this reason also, that it
contains the doctrine of the exaltation of the Messiah above all
created beings, and even above the angels themselves, and, hence, the
doctrine of His divinity,--a doctrine contested by the later Jews.
Still more remarkable is a passage from the very old book _Pesikta_,
cited in the treatise _Abkath Rokhel_ ([Hebrew: abqt rvkl], printed
separately at Venice in 1597, and reprinted in _Hulsii Theologia
Judaica_, where [Pg 312] this passage occurs p. 309): "When God created
His world He stretched out His hand under the throne of His glory, and
brought forth the soul of the Messiah. He said to Him: 'Wilt thou heal
and redeem my sons after 6000 years?'He answered Him: 'I will.'Then
God said to Him: 'Wilt thou then also bear the punishment in order to
blot out their sins, as it is written: '_But he bore our diseases_'
(chap. liii. 4)? And He answered Him: I will joyfully bear them." In
this passage, as well as in several others which will be afterwards
cited, the doctrine of the vicarious sufferings of the Messiah is
contained, and derived from Is. liii., although the later Jews rejected
this doctrine. In a similar manner, Rabbi _Moses Haddarshan_ expresses
himself on Gen. i. 3 (Latin in _Galatinus_, _De Arcanis Cath. ver._ p.
329; in the original in _Raimund Martini Pug. Fid._ fol. 333; comp.
_Wolf_, _Bibl. Hebr._ i. p. 818): "Jehovah said: Messiah, thou my
righteous One, those who are concealed with thee will be such that
their sins will bring a heavy yoke upon thee.--The Messiah answered:
Lord of the universe, I cheerfully take upon myself all those plagues
and sufferings; and immediately the Messiah, out of love, took upon
himself all those plagues and sufferings, as is written in Is. liii.:
He was abused and oppressed." Compare another passage, in which ver. 5
is referred to the Messiah, in _Raim. Martin_, fol. iv. 30. In the
Talmud (_Gemara_, _tract. Sanhedrim_, chap. xi.), it is said of the
Messiah: "He sits before the gates of the city of Rome among the sick
and the leprous" (according to ver. 3). To the question: What is the
name of the Messiah, it is answered: He is called [Hebrew: Hivvra]
"_the leper_," and, in proof, ver. 4 is quoted according to the
erroneous interpretation of [Hebrew: ngve] by _leprosus_,--an
interpretation which is met with in _Jerome_ also.--In the work
_Rabboth_ (a commentary on the Pentateuch and the five _Megilloth_,
which, as to its principal portions, is very old, although much
interpolated at later periods, and which, according to the statements
of the Jews, was composed about the year of our Lord 300, comp. _Wolf_,
I. c. II., p. 1423, sqq. in commentary on Ruth ii. 14 [p. 46, _ed.
Cracov._]), the fifth verse is quoted, and referred to the sufferings
of the Messiah.--In the _Medrash Tillim_ (an allegorical commentary on
the Psalms, printed at Venice in 1546), it is said in Ps. ii. 7, (fol.
4): "The things of King Messiah and His mysteries are announced [Pg
313] in the Law, the Prophets, and the Hagiographa. In the Prophets,
_e.g._, in the passage Is. lii. 13, and xlii. 1; in the Hagiographa,
_e.g._, Ps. cx. and Dan. vii. 13." In the book _Chasidim_ (a collection
of moral tales, printed at Venice and Basle in 1581) p. 60, the
following story is to be found: "There was, among the Jews, a pious
man, who in summer made his bed among fleas, and in winter put his feet
into cold water; and when it froze, his feet froze at the same time.
When asked why he did so, he answered, that he too must make some
little expiation, since the Messiah bears the sin of Israel ([Hebrew:
mwiH svbl evnvt iwral])." The ancient explanation is, from among the
later interpreters, assented to by _Rabbi Alschech_ (his commentary on
Is. liii. is given entire in _Hulsii Theologia Judaica_, p. 321 sqq.).
He says: "Upon the testimony of tradition, our old Rabbins have
unanimously admitted that King Messiah is here the subject of
discourse. For the same reason, we, in harmony with them, conclude that
King David, _i.e._, the Messiah, must be considered as the subject of
this prophecy,--a view which is indeed quite obvious." We shall see,
however, subsequently, that he adheres to the right explanation only in
the first three verses, and afterwards abandons it. But passages
especially remarkable are found in the cabbalistic book _Sohar_. It is
true that the age of the book is very uncertain; but it cannot be
proved to have been composed under Christian influence. We shall here
quote only some of the principal passages. (_Sohar_, ed. Amstelod. p.
ii. fol. 212; ed. _Solisbac._ p. ii. f. 85; _Sommeri_ theol. _Sohar_ p.
94.) "When the Messiah is told of the misery of Israel in their
captivity, and that they are themselves the cause of it, because they
had not cared for, nor sought after the knowledge of their Lord, He
weeps aloud over their sins; and for this reason it is written in
Scripture (Isa. liii. 5): He was wounded for our transgressions, He was
smitten for our iniquities."--"In the garden of Eden there is an
apartment which is called the sick chamber. The Messiah goes into this
apartment, and summons all the diseases, all the pains, and all the
chastisements of Israel to come upon Him, and they all come upon Him.
And unless He would take them away from Israel, and lay them upon
himself, no man would be able to bear the chastisements of Israel,
which are inflicted upon them on account of the Law, as it is [Pg 314]
written: But He took upon himself our sicknesses," &c. In another
passage (_Sohar_, _ed. Amstelod_ p. iii. f. 218; _Solisbac._ iii. f.
88; _Sommeri theol. Sohar_ p. 89; _Auszuege aus dem Buche Sohar, mit
Deutscher Uebersetzung_, Berlin 52, S. 32), it is said: "When God
wishes to give to the world a means of healing. He smites one of the
pious among them, and for his sake He gives healing to the whole world.
Where, in Scripture, do we find this confirmed? In Isa. liii. 5, where
it is said: He was wounded for our transgressions. He was crushed for
our sins."

What has been said will be a sufficient proof that the ancient Jews,
following tradition, referred the passage to the Messiah; and, as it
appears from the majority of the passages quoted, referred it indeed to
the suffering Messiah. But it would really have been a strange
phenomenon, if this interpretation had remained the prevailing one
among the Jews. According to the declaration of the Apostle, the Cross
of Christ is to the Jews a stumbling-block, and to the Greeks
foolishness. The idea of a suffering and expiating Messiah was
repugnant to the carnally minded Jews. And the reason why it was
repugnant to them is, that they did not possess that which alone makes
that doctrine acceptable, viz., the knowledge of sin, and the
consciousness of the need of salvation,--because, not knowing the
holiness of God, and being ignorant of the import of the Law, they
imagined that through their own strength, by the works of the Law, they
could be justified before God. What they wished for was only an outward
deliverance from their misery and their oppressors, not an internal
deliverance from sin. For this reason, they looked exclusively to those
passages of the Old Testament in which the Messiah in glory is
announced; and those passages they interpreted in a carnal manner. In
addition to this, there were other reasons which could not fail to
render them averse to refer this passage to the suffering Messiah. As
they could not compare the prophecy with the fulfilment,--the deep
abasement of the Messiah which is here announced, the contempt which He
endures, His violent death, appeared to them irreconcileable with those
passages in which nothing of the kind is mentioned, but, on the
contrary, the glorified Messiah only is foretold. They had too little
knowledge of the nature [Pg 315] of prophetic vision to enable them to
perceive that the prophecies are connected with the circumstances of
the time, and, therefore, exhibit a one-sided character,--that they
consist of separate fragments which must be put together in order that
a complete representation of the subject may be obtained. They imagined
that because, in some passages, the Messiah is at once brought before
us in glory, just because He, in this way, represented Himself to the
prophets. He must also appear at once in glory. And, lastly, by their
controversy with Christians, they were led to seek for other
explanations. As long as they understood the passage as referring to a
suffering Messiah, they could not deny that there existed the closest
agreement between the prophecy and the history of Christ. Now since the
Christians, in their controversies with the Jews, always proceeded from
the passages, which by _Hulsius_ is pertinently called a _carnificina
Judaeorum_, and always returned to it,--since they saw what impression
was, in numerous cases, produced by the controversy of the Christians
founded upon this passage, nothing was more natural, than that they
should endeavour to discover an expedient for remedying this evil. And
the discovery of such an expedient was the more easy to them, the more
that, in general, they were destitute of a sense of truth, and
especially of exegetical skill, so that they could not see any reason
for rejecting an interpretation on the ground of its being forced and
unnatural.

In proof of what we have said, we here briefly present the arguments
with which _Abarbanel_ opposes the explanation of a suffering and
expiating divine Messiah. In the first place, by the absurd remark that
the ancient teachers did not intend to give a literal, but an
allegorical explanation, he seeks to invalidate the authority of the
tradition on which the later Jewish interpreters laid so great a
stress, whensoever and wheresoever it agrees with their own
inclination; and, at the same time, he advances the assertion that they
referred the first four verses only to the Messiah,--an assertion which
the passages quoted by us show to be utterly erroneous. Then, after
having combatted the doctrine of original sin, he continues: "Suppose
even that there exists such a thing as original sin,--when God, whose
power is infinite, was willing to pardon, was His hand too short to
redeem (Isa. l. 2), so [Pg 316] that, on this account, He was obliged
to take flesh, and to impose chastisements upon himself? And even
although I were to grant that it was necessary that a single individual
of the human race should bear this punishment, in order to make
satisfaction for all, it would, at all events, have been at least more
appropriate that some one from among ourselves, some wise man or
prophet, had taken upon him the punishment, than that God himself
should have done so. For, supposing even that He became incarnate,
He would not be like one of us.--It is altogether impossible and
self-contradictory that God should assume a body; for God is the first
cause, infinite, and omnipotent. He cannot, therefore, assume flesh,
and subsist as a finite being, and take upon himself man's punishment,
of which nothing whatsoever is written in Scripture.--If the prophecy
referred to the Messiah, it must refer either to the Messiah ben
Joseph, or the Messiah ben David (compare the Treatises at the close of
this work). The former will perish in the beginning of his wars;
neither that which is said of the exaltation, nor that which is said of
the humiliation of the Servant of God applies to him; much less can the
latter be intended." (There then follows a quotation of several
passages treating of the exalted Messiah.)

That it was nevertheless difficult for the carnally-minded among the
Jews to reject the tradition, is seen from the paraphrase of
_Jonathan_. This forms a middle link between the ancient
interpretation--which was retained, even at a later period, by the
better portion of the nation--and the recent interpretation. _Jonathan_
(see his paraphrase, among others, in _Lowth's_ comment, edited by
_Koppe_, on the passage; and in _Hulsii Theol. Judaica_) acknowledges
the tradition, in so far, that he refers the whole prophecy to the
Messiah. On the other hand, he endeavours to satisfy his repugnance to
the doctrine of a suffering and expiating Messiah, by referring,
through the most violent perversions and most arbitrary interpolations,
to the state of glory, every thing which is here said of the state of
humiliation. A trace of the right interpretation may yet perhaps be
found in ver. 12, where _Jonathan_ says that the Messiah will give
_His_ soul unto death; but it may be that thereby he understands
merely the intrepid courage with which the Messiah will expose himself
to all [Pg 317] dangers, in the conflict with the enemies of the
covenant-people.

This mode of dealing with the text, however, could satisfy only a few.
They, therefore, went farther, and sought for an entirely different
subject of the prophecy. How very little they were themselves convinced
of the soundness of their interpretation, and satisfied with its
results, may be seen from the example of _Abarbanel_, who advances two
explanations which differ totally, viz., one referring it to the Jewish
people, and the other to king Josiah, and then allows his readers to
make their choice betwixt the two. It is in truth only, that there is
unanimity and certainty; error is always accompanied by disagreement
and uncertainty. This will appear from the following enumeration of the
various interpretations of this passage, which, at a subsequent period,
were current among the Jews. (The principal non-Messianic
interpretations of this passage are found in the Rabbinical Bibles, and
also in _Hulsius_, _l.c._, p. 339, both in the original and
translation.) The interpreters may be divided into two main classes: 1.
Those who by [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] understand some collective body; and,
2. Those who refer the prophecy to a single individual. The first class
again falls into two subdivisions, (_a_), those who make the whole
Jewish people the subject, in contrast to the Gentiles; and (_b_) those
who make the better portion of the Jewish people the subject, in
contrast to the ungodly portion. These views, and their supporters, we
shall now proceed to submit to a closer examination.

1. (_a._) Among the non-Messianic interpreters, the most prevalent
opinion is, that the Jewish people are the subject of the prophecy.
This opinion is found at an early period. At this we need not be
surprised, as the cause which produced the deviation from the Messianic
interpretation existed at a period equally early. When _Origen_ was
making use of this passage against some learned Jews, they answered:
that "that which here was prophesied of one, referred to the whole
people, and was fulfilled by their dispersion." This explanation is
followed by _R. Salomo Jarchi_, _Abenezra_, _Kimchi_, _Abarbanel_,
_Lipmann_ ([Hebrew: spr ncHvN], fol. 131). The main features of this
view are the following: The prophecy is supposed to describe the misery
of the people in their present exile, the firmness with [Pg 318] which
they bear it for the glory of God, and resist every temptation to
forsake His law and worship; and the prosperity, power, and glory which
shall be bestowed upon them at the time of the redemption. In vers.
1-10, the Gentiles are supposed to be introduced as speaking, and
making a humble and penitent confession that hitherto they had adopted
an erroneous opinion of the people of God, and had unjustly despised
them on account of their sufferings, inasmuch as their glory now shows,
that it was not for the punishment of their sins that these sufferings
were inflicted upon them. Some of these interpreters, _e.g._,
_Abenezra_ and _Rabbi Lipmann_, understand, indeed, by the [Hebrew: ebd
ihvh], the pious portion only of the people who remained faithful to
Jehovah; but this makes no material difference, inasmuch as they, too,
contrast the [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] with the heathen nations, and not with
the ungodly, or less righteous portion of the nation, as is done by the
interpreters of the following class.

(_b_). Others consider the appellation [Hebrew: ebd ihvh] as a
collective designation of the pious, and find in this section the idea
of a kind of vicarious satisfaction made by them for the ungodly. Those
interpreters come nearer the true explanation, in so far as they do
not, like those of the preceding class, set aside the doctrine of
vicarious satisfaction, either by a figurative explanation, or, like
_Kimchi_, by the absurd remark, that this doctrine is an error put into
the mouth of the Gentiles. On the other hand, they depart from the true
explanation, in so far that they generalize that which belongs to a
definite subject, and that, flattering the pride of the natural man,
they ascribe to mere man what belongs only to the God-man. Most
distinctly was this view expressed by the Commentator on the book
[Hebrew: eiN ieqb] or [Hebrew: eiN iwral], which has been very
frequently printed, and which contains all sorts of tales from the
Talmud. He says: "It is right to suppose that the whole section
contains a prophecy regarding the righteous ones who are visited by
sufferings." He then makes two classes of righteous men:--those who in
general must endure many sufferings and much misery: and those who are
publicly executed, as _Rabbi Akiba_ and others. He supposes that the
Prophet shows the dignity of both of these classes of righteous men, to
both of which the name of a Servant of God is justly due. A similar
opinion is held by _Rabbi_ [Pg 319] _Alshech_. As we have already seen,
he refers only chap. lii. 13-15 to the Messiah, and to His great glory
acquired by His great sufferings. Then the Prophet speaks, as he
supposes, in the name of all Israel, approves of what God had said, and
confesses that, by this declaration of God regarding the sufferings of
the Messiah, they have received light regarding the sufferings of the
godly in general. They perceive it to be erroneous and rash to infer
guilt from suffering; and, henceforth, when they see a righteous man
suffering, they will think of no other reason, than that he bears their
diseases, and that his chastisements are for their salvation. The
Servant of God is thus supposed to be as it were, a personification of
the righteous ones.--A similar view probably lies at the foundation of
those passages of the Talmud, where some portions of the prophecy under
consideration are referred to Moses, and others to _Rabbi Akiba_, who
is revered as a martyr by the Jews. It does not appear that the
prophecy was confined to Moses or Akiba; but it was referred to them,
only in so far as they belonged to the collective body which is
supposed to be the subject of it.

2. That view which makes a single individual other than the Messiah the
subject of the prophecy, has found, with the Jews, comparatively the
fewest defenders. We have already seen, that, besides the explanation
which makes the Jewish people the subject, _Abarbanel_ advances still
another, which refers it to king Josiah. _Rabbi Saadias Haggaon_
explained the whole section of Jeremiah.

Notwithstanding all these efforts, however, the Rabbins have not
succeeded in entirely supplanting the right explanation, and in thus
divesting the passage of all that is dangerous to their system. Among
the Cabbalistical Jews, it is even still the prevailing one. In
numerous cases, it was just this chapter which formed, to proselytes
from Judaism, the first foundation of their conviction of the truth of
Christianity.


          B. HISTORY OF THE INTERPRETATION WITH THE CHRISTIANS.

Among Christians, the interpretation has taken nearly the same course
as among the Jews. Similar causes have produced [Pg 320] similar
effects in both cases. By both, the true explanation was relinquished,
when the prevailing tendencies had become opposed to its results. And
if we descend to particulars, we shall find a great resemblance even
between the modes of interpretation proposed by both.

1. Even, _a priori_, we could not but suppose otherwise than that the
Christian Church, as long as she possessed Christ, found Him here also,
where He is so clearly and distinctly set before our eyes,--that as
long as she in general still acknowledged the authority of Christ, and
of the Apostles, she could not but, here too, follow their distinct,
often-repeated testimony. And so, indeed, do we find it to be. With the
exception of a certain Silesian, called _Seidel_--who, given up to
total unbelief, asserted that the Messiah had never yet come, nor would
ever come, (comp. _Jac. Martini l._ 3, _de tribus Elohim_, p. 592)--and
of _Grotius_, both of whom supposed Jeremiah to be the subject, no one
in the Christian Church has, for seventeen centuries, ventured to call
in question the Messianic interpretation. On the contrary, this passage
was always considered to be the most distinct and glorious of all the
Messianic prophecies. Out of the great mass of testimonies, we shall
quote a few. _Augustine_, _De Civitate Dei_, i. 18, c. 29, says:
"Isaiah has not only reproved the people for their iniquity, and
instructed them in righteousness, and foretold to the people calamities
impending over them in the Future; but he has also a greater number of
predictions, than the other prophets, concerning Christ and the Church,
_i.e._, concerning the King, and the Kingdom established by Him; so
that some interpreters would rather call him an Evangelist than a
Prophet." In proof of this assertion, he then quotes the passage under
consideration, and closes with the words: "Surely that may suffice!
There are in those words some things too which require explanation; but
I think that things which are so clear should compel even enemies,
against their will, to understand them." In a similar manner he
expresses himself in: _De consensu Evangelistarum_ l. i. c. 31.
_Theodoret_ remarks on this passage (_opp. ed. Hal._ t. ii. p. 358):
"The Prophet represents to us, in this passage, the whole course of His
(Christ's) humiliation unto death. Most wonderful is the power of the
Holy Spirit. For that which was to take place after many generations.
He showed [Pg 321] to the holy prophets in such a manner that they did
not merely hear Him declare these things, but saw them." In a similar
manner, _Justin_, _Irenaeus_, _Cyril_ of Alexandria, and _Jerome_,
express themselves. From the Churches of the Reformation, we shall here
quote the testimonies of two of their founders only. _Zwingle_, in
_Annot. ad h. l._ (opp. t. iii. Tur. 1544, fol. 292) says: "That which
now follows is so clear a testimony of Christ, that I do not know
whether, anywhere in Scripture, there could be found anything more
consistent, or that anything could be more distinctly said. For it is
quite in vain that the obstinacy and perversity of the Jews have tried
it from all sides." _Luther_ remarks on the passage: "And, no doubt,
there is not, in all the Old Testament Scriptures, a clearer text or
prophecy, both of the suffering and the resurrection of Christ, than in
this chapter. Wherefore it is but right that it should be well known to
all Christians, yea should be committed to memory, that thereby we may
strengthen our faith, and defend it, chiefly against the stiff-necked
Jews who deny their only promised Christ, solely on account of the
offence of His cross."

It was reserved to the last quarter of the last century to be the first
to reject the Messianic interpretation. _At a time when Naturalism
exercised its sway, it could no longer be retained._[1] For, if
this passage contains a Messianic prophecy at all, its contents
offer so striking an agreement with the history of Christ, that its
origin cannot at all be accounted for in the natural way. Expedients
were, therefore, sought for; and these were so much the more easily
found, that the Jews had, in this matter, already opened up the way.
All that was necessary, was only to appropriate their arguments and
counter-arguments, and to invest them with the semblance of solidity by
means of a learned apparatus.

The non-Messianic interpretation among Christians, like those among the
Jews, may be divided into two main classes: 1. Those which are founded
upon the supposition that a collective [Pg 322] body is the subject of
the prophecy; and 2, those which, by the Servant of God, understand any
other single individual except the Messiah. The first class, again,
falls into several sub-divisions: (_a._), those interpretations which
refer the prophecy to the whole Jewish people; (_b._), those which
refer it to the Jewish people in the abstract; (_c._), those which
refer it to the pious portion of the Jewish people; (_d._), those which
refer it to the order of the priests; (_e._), those which refer it to
the order of the prophets.

1. (_a._) Comparatively the greatest number of non-Messianic
interpreters make the whole Jewish people the subject of the prophecy.
This hypothesis is adopted, among others, by _Doederlein_, (in the
preface and annotations, in the third edition of Isaiah, but in such a
manner that he still wavers betwixt this and the Messianic
interpretation, which formerly he had defended with great zeal); by
_Schuster_ (in a special treatise, Goettingen 1794); by _Stephani_
(_Gedanken ueber die Entstehung u. Ausbildung der Idee von inem
Messias_, _Nuernberg_ 1787); by the author of the letters on Isaiah
liii., in the 6th vol. of _Eichhorn's Bibliothek_; by _Eichhorn_ (in
his exposition of the Prophets); by _Rosenmueller_ (in the second
edition of his Commentary, leaving to others the interpretation which
referred the prophecy to the prophetic order, although he himself had
first recommended it), and many others. The last who defend it are
_Hitzig_, _Hendewerk_, and _Koester_ (_de Serv. Jeh._ Kiel, 38).
Substantially, it has remained the same as we have seen it among the
Jews. The only difference is, that these expositors understand, by the
sufferings of the Servant of God, the sufferings of the Jewish people
in the Babylonish captivity; while the Jewish interpreters understand
thereby the sufferings of the Jewish people in their present exile.
They, too, suppose that, from vers. 1 to 10, the Gentile nations are
introduced as speaking, and make the penitent confession that they have
formed an erroneous opinion of Israel, and now see that its suffering's
are not the punishment of its own sins, but that it had suffered as a
substitute for their sins.

(_b._) The hypothesis which makes the Jewish people in the abstract--in
antithesis to its single members--the subject of this prophecy, was
discovered by _Eckermann_, _theol. Beitraege_, [Pg 323] Bd. i. H. i. S.
192 ff. According to _Ewald_, the prophecy refers to "Israel according
to its true idea." According to _Bleek_, the Servant of God is a
"designation of the whole people, but not of the people in its actual
reality, but as it existed in the imagination of the author,--the ideal
of the people."

(_c._) The hypothesis, that the pious portion of the Jewish people--in
contrast to the ungodly--are the subject, has been defended especially
by _Paulus_ (_Memorabilien_, Bd. 3, S. 175-192, and _Clavis_ on
Isaiah). His view was adopted by _Ammon_ (_Christologie_, S. 108 ff.).
The principal features of this view are the following:--It was not on
account of their own sins that the godly portion of the nation were
punished and carried into captivity along with the ungodly, but on
account of the ungodly who, however, by apostatising from the religion
of Jehovah, knew how to obtain a better fate. The ungodly drew from it
the inference that the hope of the godly, that Jehovah would come to
their help, had been in vain. But when the captivity came to an end,
and the godly returned, they saw that they had been mistaken, and that
the hope of the godly was well founded. They, therefore, full of
repentance, deeply lament that they had not long ago repented of their
sins. This view is adopted also by _Von Coelln_ in his _Biblische
Theologie_; by _Thenius_ in _Wiener's Zeitschrift_, ii. 1; by _Maurer_
and _Knobel_. The latter says: "Those who were zealous adherents of the
Theocracy had a difficult position among their own people, and had to
suffer most from foreign tyrants." The true worshippers of Jehovah were
given up to mockery and scorn, to persecution and the grossest abuse,
and were in a miserable and horrible condition, unworthy of men and
almost inhuman. The punishments for sin had to be endured chiefly by
those who did not deserve them. Thus the view easily arose that the
godly suffered in substitution for the whole people.

(_d._) The hypothesis which makes the priestly order the subject, has
been defended by the author of: _Ausfuehrliche Erklaerung der saemmtlichen
Weissagungen des A. T._ 1801.

(_e._) The hypothesis which makes the collective body of the prophets
the subject, was first advanced by _Rosenmueller_ in the treatise:
_Leiden und Hoffnungen der Propheten Jehovas_, [Pg 324] in _Gablers
Neuestes theol. Journal_, vol. ii. S. 4, p. 333 ff. From him it came as
a legacy to _De Wette_ (_de morte Jes. Chr. expiatoria_, p. 28 sqq.),
and to _Gesenius_. According to _Schenkel_ (_Studien und Kritiken_ 36)
"the prophetic order was the quiet, hidden blossom, which early storms
broke." According to _Umbreit_ the Servant of God is the collective
body of the prophets, or the prophetic order, which is here plainly
represented as the sacrificial beast (!) taking upon itself the sins of
the people. He finds it "rather strange that the Prophet who, in chap.
lxvi. 3 (of course according to a false interpretation), plainly
rejects sacrifice altogether, should speak of the shedding of the blood
of a man, and, moreover, of a pure, sinless man, in the room of the
guilty." The manner in which _Umbreit_ seeks to gain a transition to
the Messianic interpretation, although not in the sense held by the
Christian Church, has been pointed out by us on a former occasion, in
the remarks on chap. xlii. _Hofmann_ (_Schriftbeweis_, ii. 1 S. 89 ff.)
has got up a mixture composed of these explanations which refer the
prophecy to the people, to the godly, to the prophetic order, and, if
one will, of that also which refers it to the Messiah. He says: "The
people as a people are called to be the servant of God; but they do not
fulfil their vocation as a congregation of the faithful; and it is,
therefore, the work of the prophets to restore that congregation, and
hence also the fulfilment of its vocation.--Prophetism itself is
represented not in its present condition only, when it exists in a
number of messengers and witnesses of Jehovah, in the first instance in
Isaiah himself, but also in the final result, into which the fulfilment
of its vocation will lead, when the Servant of Jehovah unites in His
person the offices of a proclaimer of the impending work of salvation,
and of its Mediator, and, from the shame and suffering attached to His
vocation as a witness, passes over into the glory of the salvation
realised in Him." In order to render such a mixture possible,
everything is tried in order to remove the vicarious character of the
sufferings of the Servant of God, since that character is peculiar to
Christ, and excludes every comparison. "Of a priestly self-sacrifice of
the Servant of God"--says _Hofmann_, S. 101, 2--"I cannot find
anything. The assertion that the words [Hebrew: izh gviM], denote a
priestly work, no longer requires a refutation. His [Pg 325] vocation
is to be the mediator of a revelation of God in words; and although the
fulfilment of this vocation brings death upon Him, without His
endeavouring to escape, this is not a proof nor a part of His priestly
vocation. In just the same case is the assertion that the Messiah
appears here as a King also." As long as we proceed from the
supposition that the Prophet predicts truth, we are, by that very
supposition, forbidden to distribute the property of the one among the
many; but that is thus violently set aside. The Rationalistic
interpreters have in this respect an easier task. They allow the
substitution to stand; but they consider it as a vain fancy. The fact
that _Hofmann_ does not recoil from even the most violent
interpretations, in order to remove the exclusive reference to Christ,
appears, _e.g._, from his remark, S. 132, that "the chastisement of our
peace" designates an actual chastisement, which convinces them of their
sin, and of the earnestness of divine holiness, and thus serves for
their salvation. Surely _Gesenius_ and _Hitzig's_ explanations are far
more unbiassed.

2. Among the interpretations which refer the prophecy to a single
individual other than the Messiah, scarcely any one has found another
defender than its own author. They are of importance only in so far, as
they show that most decidedly does the prophecy make the impression,
that its subject is a real person, not a personification; and, farther,
that it could not by any means be an exegetical interest which induced
rationalism to reject the interpretation which referred it to Christ.
The persons that have been guessed at are the following: King Uzziah,
(_Augusti_), King Hezekiah, (_Konynenburg_ and _Bahrdt_), the Prophet
Isaiah himself, (_Staeudlin_), an unknown prophet supposed to have been
killed by the Jews in the captivity (an anonymous author in _Henke's
Magazin_, Bd. i. H. 2), the royal house of David, which suffered
innocently when the children of the unhappy king Zedekiah were killed
at the command of Nebuchadnezzar (_Bolten_ on Acts viii. 33), the
Maccabees (an anonymous writer in the _Theologische Nachrichten_, 1821,
S. 79 ff.) Even at this present time, this kind of explanation is not
altogether obsolete. _Schenkel_ thinks that "the chapter under
consideration may, perhaps, belong to the period of the real Isaiah,
whose language equals that of the description of the Servant of God now
[Pg 326] under consideration, in conciseness and harshness, and may
have been originally a Psalm of consolation in sufferings, which was
composed with a view to the hopeful progeny of some pious man or
prophet innocently killed, and which was rewritten and interpreted by
the author of the book, and embodied in it." _Ewald_ (Proph. ii. S.
407) says: "Farther, the description of the Servant of God is here
altogether very strange, especially v. 8 f., inasmuch as,
notwithstanding all the liveliness with which the author of the book
conceives of Him, He is nowhere else so much and so obviously viewed as
an historical person, as a single individual of the Past. How little
soever the author may have intended it, it was very obvious that the
later generations imagined that they would here find the historical
Messiah. We are therefore of opinion, that the author here inserted a
passage, which appeared to him to be suitable, from an older book where
really a single martyr was spoken of.--It is not likely that the modern
controversy on chap. liii. will ever cease as long as this truth is not
acknowledged;--a truth which quite spontaneously suggested itself, and
impressed itself more and more strongly upon my mind." These are, no
doubt, assertions which cannot be maintained, and are yet of interest,
in so far as they show, how much even those who refuse to acknowledge
it are annoyed by a two-fold truth, viz., that Isaiah is the author of
the prophecy, and that it refers to a personal Messiah.

At all times, however, that explanation which refers the prophecy
to Christ has found able defenders; and at no period has the
anti-Messianic explanation obtained absolute sway. Among the authors of
complete Commentaries on Isaiah, the Messianic explanation was defended
by _Dathe_, _Doederlein_ (who, however, wavers in the last edition of
his translation), _Hensler_, _Lowth_, _Kocher_, _Koppe_, _J. D.
Michaelis_, _v. d. Palm_, _Schmieder_. In addition to these we may
mention: _Storr_, _dissertatio qua Jes. liii. illustratur_, Tuebingen,
1790; _Hansi Comment. in Jes. liii._, Rostock 1791 (this work has
considerably promoted the interpretation, although its author often
shows himself to be biassed by the views of the time, and especially,
in the interest of Neology, seeks to do away with the doctrine of
satisfaction); _Krueger_, _Comment. de Jes. liii., interpret_; _Jahn_,
_Append. ad Hermen. fasc ii._; _Steudel_, [Pg 327] _Observ. ad Jes.
liii._, _Tuebingen_ 1825, 26; _Sack_, in the _Apologetik_; _Reinke_,
_exegesis in Jes. liii._, Muenster 1836; _Tholuck_, in his work: _Das A.
T. in N. T._; _Haevernick_, in the lectures on the Theology of the Old
Testament; _Stier_, in the Comment. on the second part of Isaiah.



[Footnote 1: The author of the article: _Ueber die Mess. Zeiten_ in
_Eichhorn's Bibliothek d. bibl. Literatur_, Bd. 6, p. 655, confesses
quite candidly, that the Messianic interpretation would soon find
general approbation among Bible expositors, had they not, in recent
times, obtained the conviction, "that the prophets do not foretel any
thing of future things, except what they know and anticipate without
special divine inspiration."]


                           * * * * * * * * * *




         II. THE ARGUMENTS AGAINST THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION.


The arguments against the Messianic interpretation cannot be designated
in any other way than as _insignificant_. There is not one among them
which could be of any weight to him who is able to judge. It is
asserted that the Messiah is nowhere else designated as the Servant of
God. Even if this were the fact, it would not prove anything. But this
name is assigned to the Messiah in Zech. iii. 8--a passage which
interpreters are unanimous in referring to the Messiah--where the Lord
calls the Messiah His Servant _Zemach_, and which the Chaldee
Paraphrast explains by [Hebrew: mwiHa vitgli] "_Messiam et
revelabitur_;" farther, in Ezek. xxxiv. 23, 24, not to mention Is.
xlii. 1, xlix. 3, 6, l. 10.--It is farther asserted that in the
Messianic interpretation everything is viewed as _future_; but that
this is inadmissible for grammatical and philological reasons. The
suffering, contempt, and death of the Servant of God are here,
throughout, represented as past, since in chap. liii. 1-10, all the
verbs are in the Preterite. It is the glorification only which appears
as future, and is expressed in the Future tense. The writer, therefore,
occupies a position between the sufferings and the glorification, and
the latter is still impending. But the stand-point of the Prophet is
not an actual, but a supposed one,--not a real, but an ideal one. In
order to distinguish between condition and consequence,--in order to
put sufferings and glorification in the proper relation, he takes his
stand between the sufferings and the glorification of the Servant of
God, and from that position, that appears to him as being already past
which, in reality, was [Pg 328] still future. It is only an interpreter
so thoroughly prosaic as _Knobel_ who can advance the assertion: "No
prophet occupies, in prophecy, another stand-point than that which in
reality be occupies." In this, _e.g._, _Hitzig_ does not by any means
assent to him; for be (_Hitzig_) remarks on chap. lii. 7: "Proceeding
from the certainty of the salvation, the Prophet sees, in the Spirit,
that already coming to pass which, in chap. xl. 9, he called upon them
to do." And the same expositor farther remarks on Jer. vi. 24-26: "This
is a statement of how people would then speak, and, thereby, a
description of the circumstances of that time." But in our remarks on
chap. xi. and in the introduction to the second part, we have already
proved that the prophets very frequently occupy an ideal stand-point,
and that such is the case here, the Prophet has himself expressly
intimated. In some places, he has passed from the prophetical
stand-point to the historical, and uses the Future even when he speaks
of the sufferings,--a thing which appears to have been done
involuntarily, but which, in reality, is done intentionally. Thus there
occurs [Hebrew: iptH] in ver. 7, [Hebrew: twiM] in ver. 10, and,
according to the explanations of _Gesenius_ and others, also [Hebrew:
ipgie] in ver. 12 while, on the other hand, he sometimes speaks of the
glorification in the Preterite.[1] Compare [Hebrew: lqH] in ver. 8,
[Hebrew: nwa] in ver. 12. This affords a sure proof that we are here
altogether on an ideal territory. The ancient translators too have not
understood the Preterites as a designation of the real Past, and
frequently render them by Futures. Thus the LXX. ver. 14: [Greek:
ekstesontai--adoxesei]; _Aqui._ and _Theod._, ver. 2, [Greek:
anabesetai].--It is farther asserted, that the idea of a suffering and
expiating Messiah is foreign to the Old Testament, and stands in
contradiction even to its prevailing views of the Messiah. But this
objection cannot be of any weight; nor can it prove anything, as long
as, in the Church of Christ, the authority of Christ is still
acknowledged, who Himself declares that His whole suffering had been
foretold in the books of the Old Testament, and explained to His
disciples the prophecies concerning it. Even the fact, that at [Pg 329]
the time when Christ appeared the knowledge of a suffering Messiah was
undeniably possessed by the more enlightened, proves that the matter
stands differently. This knowledge is shown not only by the Baptist,
but also by Simeon, Luke ii. 34, 35. An assertion to the contrary can
proceed only from the erroneous opinion, that every single Messianic
prophecy exhibits the whole view of the Messiah, whereas, indeed, the
Messianic announcements bear throughout a fragmentary, incidental
character,--a mode of representation which is generally prevalent in
Scripture, and by which Scripture is distinguished from a system of
doctrines. But even if there had existed an appearance of such a
contradiction, it would long ago have been removed by the fulfilment.
But even the appearance of a contradiction is here inadmissible,
inasmuch as the Servant of God is here not only represented as
suffering and expiating, but, at the same time, as an object of
reverence to the whole Gentile world; and the _ground_ of this
reverence is His suffering and expiation. As regards the other passages
of the Old Testament where a suffering Messiah is mentioned, we must
distinguish between the Messiah simply suffering, and the Messiah
suffering as a substitute. The latter, indeed, we meet with in this
passage only. But to make up for this isolated mention, the
representation here is so full and exhaustive, so entirely excludes
all misunderstanding, except that which is bent upon misunderstanding,
or which is the result of evil disposition, is so affecting and so
indelibly impressive, is indeed so exactly in the tone of doctrinal
theology, and therefore different from the ordinary treatment, which is
always incidental, and requires to be supplemented from other passages,
that this single isolated representation, which sounds through the
whole of the New Testament, is quite sufficient for the Church. The
suffering and dying Messiah, on the other hand, we meet with frequently
in other passages of the Old Testament also, although, indeed, not so
frequently as the Messiah in glory. In this light He is brought before
us, _e.g._, in chap. xlix. 50; in Dan. ix.; in Zech. ix. 9, 10, xi. 12,
13. The fact that the humiliation of Christ would precede His
exaltation is distinctly pointed out in the first part of Isaiah also,
in chap. xi. 1,--a passage which contains, in a germ, all that, in the
second part, [Pg 330] is more fully stated regarding the suffering
Messiah, and which has many striking points of contact specially with
chap. liii. And just so it is with Isaiah's contemporary, Micah, who,
in chap. v. 1 (2), makes the Messiah proceed, not from Jerusalem, the
seat of the Davidic family after it was raised to the royal dignity,
but from Bethlehem, where Jesse, the ancestor, lived as a peasant,--as
a proof that the Messiah would proceed from the family of David sank
back into the obscurity of private life. This knowledge, that the
Messiah should proceed from the altogether abased house of David,--a
knowledge which appears as early as in Amos, and which pervades the
whole of prophecy--touches very closely upon the knowledge of His
sufferings. Lowliness of origin, and exaltation of destination, can
hardly be reconciled without severe conflicts. But it is _a priori_
impossible, that the idea of the suffering Messiah should be wanting in
the Old Testament. Since, in the Old Testament, throughout,
righteousness and suffering in this world of sin are represented as
being indissolubly connected, the Messiah, being [Greek: kat'exochen]
the Righteous One, must necessarily appear also as He who suffers in
the highest degree. If that were not the case, the Messiah would be
totally disconnected from all His types, especially from David, who,
through the severest sufferings, attained to glory, and who in his
Psalms, everywhere considers this course as the normal one, both in the
Psalms which refer to the suffering righteous in general, and in those
which especially refer to his family reaching their highest elevation
in the Messiah; compare my Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. iv., p. lxxx.
ff.



[Footnote 1: The same thing occurs also in the parallel passages, chap.
xlix. 9, on which _Gesenius_ was constrained to remark: "As the
deliverance was still impending, the Preterites cannot well be
understood in any other way than as Futures."]


                           * * * * * * * * * *




      III. THE ARGUMENTS IN FAVOUR OF THE MESSIANIC INTERPRETATION.


Even the fact that this is among the Jews the original interpretation,
which was given up from their evil disposition only, makes us
favourably inclined towards it. The authority of tradition is here of
so much the greater consequence, the more that the Messianic
interpretation was opposed to the disposition [Pg 331] of the people.
How deeply rooted was this interpretation, appears even from the
declaration of John the Baptist, John i. 29: [Greek: ide ho amnos tou
Theou ho airon ten hamartian tou kosmou]. There cannot be any doubt
that, in this declaration, he points to the prophecy under
consideration, inasmuch as this passage is the first in Holy Scripture
in which the sin-bearing lamb is spoken of in a spiritual sense.
_Bengel_, following the example of _Erasmus_, remarks, in reference to
the article before [Greek: amnos]: "The article looks back to the
prophecy which was given concerning Him under this figure, in Is. liii.
7." As regards [Greek: Theou], compare ver. 10: "It pleased the Lord
painfully to crush Him," and ver. 2: "Before Him;" as regards [Greek:
ho airon], &c. comp. ver. 4, rendered by the LXX.: [Greek: houtos tas
hamartias hemon pherei]; comp. ver. 11.

An external argument of still greater weight is the testimony of the
New Testament. Above all, it is the declarations of our Lord himself
which here come into consideration. In Luke xxii. 37, He says that the
prophecies concerning Him were drawing near their perfect fulfilment
([Greek: ta peri emou telos echei]), comp. Matt. xxvi. 51, and that
therefore the declaration: "And He was reckoned among the
transgressors" must be fulfilled in Him. In Mark ix. 12, the Lord asks:
[Greek: pos gegraptai epi ton huion tou anthropou, hina polla pathe kai
exoudenothe], with a reference to "from man," and "from the sons of
man" in lii. 14,--to "He had no form nor comeliness" in ver. 2,--to
"despised," [Hebrew: nbzh], which, by _Symmachus_ and _Theodotian_ is
rendered by [Greek: exoudenomenos], in ver. 3. In the Gospel of John,
the Lord emphatically and repeatedly points out, that the words: "When
His soul hath given restitution," are written concerning Him; compare
remarks on ver. 10. After these distinct quotations and references, we
shall be obliged to think chiefly of our passage, in Luke xxiv. 25-27,
44-46 also. The opponents themselves grant that, if in any passage of
the Old Testament the doctrine of a suffering and atoning Messiah is
contained, it is in the passage under review. The circumstance also,
that the disciples of the Lord refer, on every occasion, and with such
confidence, the passage to the Lord, likewise proves that Christ
especially interpreted it of His sufferings and exaltation. Of Matt.
viii. 17, and Mark xv. 28, we have already spoken. John, in chap. xii.
37, 38, and Paul in Rom. x. 16, [Pg 332] find a fulfilment of chap.
liii. 1 in the unbelief of the Jews. In Acts viii. 28-35, Philip, on
the question of the eunuch from Ethiopia, as to whom the prophecy
referred, explained it of Christ. After the example of _De Wette_,
_Gesenius_ lays special stress on the circumstance, that the passage
was never quoted in reference to the atoning death of Christ. But
Peter, when speaking of the vicarious satisfaction of Christ, makes a
literal use of the principal passages of the prophecy under
consideration, 1 Pet. ii. 21-25; and it is, in general, quite the usual
way of the New Testament to support its statements by our passage,
whensoever the discourse falls upon this subject; comp. _e.g._, besides
the texts quoted at ver. 10, Mark ix. 12; Rom. iv. 25; 1 Cor. xv. 3; 2
Cor. v. 21; 1 John iii. 5; Pet. i. 19; Rev. v. 6, xiii. 8. Even
_Gesenius_ himself acknowledges elsewhere, that we have here the text
for the whole Apostolic preaching on the atoning death of Jesus. "Most
Hebrew readers"--so he says, Th. iii. S. 191--"who were so familiar
with the ideas of sacrifice and substitution, could not by any means
understand the passage in any other way; and there is no doubt that the
whole apostolic notion of the atoning death of Christ is chiefly based
upon this passage." The circumstance, that the reference to this
passage appears commonly only in the form of an allusion, and not of
express quotation, proves only so much the more clearly, that its
reference to the atoning death of Christ was a point absolutely settled
in the ancient Church.

In favour of the Messianic interpretation are not only the passages
from the second part, chap. xlii., &c., but also, from the first part,
the passage chap. xi. 1, which so remarkably agrees with chap. liii. 2,
that both must be referred to the same subject.

To these external reasons, the internal must be added. The Christian
Church--the best judge--has at all times recognised in this prophecy
the faithful and wonderfully accurate image of her Lord and Saviour in
His atoning sufferings and the glory following upon them, in His
innocence and righteousness, in His meekness and silent patience (the
New Testament, in speaking of them, frequently points back to our
passage), and in the burial with a rich man, ver. 9. The most
characteristic feature is the atoning character of the suffering of the
[Pg 333] Servant of God, and of the shedding of His blood. Several
interpreters have endeavoured to explain away this feature which they
dislike. _Kimchi_ says: "One must not imagine that the case really
stands thus, that in Israel the captivity actually bears the sins and
diseases of the heathens (for that would be opposed to the justice of
God), but that the Gentiles at that time, when seeing the glorious
deliverance of Israel, would thus judge concerning it." A futile
evasion! It is not the Gentiles who speak in chap. liii. 1-10, but the
believing Church. Every sincere reader will at once feel, that it is
not the foolish fancies of others which the Prophet communicates in
these verses, but the divine truth made known to him. The doctrine of
the substitution, the Prophet, moreover, states in his own name, by
saying, "He shall sprinkle many nations;" and so likewise in the name
of God, in chap. liii. 11, 12. According to _Martini_, _De Wette_, and
others, the expressions are to be understood figuratively, and the
contents and substance to be this only, that those severe calamities
which that divine minister would have to sustain would be useful and
salutary to His compatriots. But the fact that the same doctrine
constantly returns under the most varied expressions, is decidedly in
favour of the literal interpretation. Thus, it is said in chap. lii.
15, that the Servant of God should sprinkle many nations; in liii. 4,
that He bore our diseases and took upon Him our pains; in ver. 5, that
He was pierced for our transgressions; in ver. 8, that He bore the
punishment which the people ought to have borne; in ver. 10, that He
offered his soul as a sin-offering; in ver. 11, that by His
righteousness many should be justified; in ver. 12, that He bore the
sins of many, and poured out His soul unto death, and that He could
make intercession for transgressors, because He was numbered with them.
To this it may still be added that in chap. lii. 15 ([Hebrew: izh]),
liii. 10 ([Hebrew: awM]), and ver. 12: "He bears the sins of many,"
(compare Levit. xvi. 21, 22; _Michaelis_: "_Ut typice hircus pro
Israelitis_") the Servant of God appears as the antitype of the Old
Testament sin-offerings in which, as has been proved (compare my
pamphlet: _Die Opfer der heil. Schrift_, S. 12 ff.), the idea of
substitution in the doctrine of the Old Testament finds its foundation.
There cannot be the least doubt, that the Prophet could not express
himself more clearly, strongly, [Pg 334] and distinctly, if his
intention was to state the doctrine of substitution; and those who
undertake to explain it away, would not, by so doing, leave any thing
firm and certain in Scripture. _Rosenmueller_ (_Gabler's_ Journal, ii.
S. 365), _Gesenius_, _Hitzig_ have indeed candidly confessed that the
passage contained the doctrine of vicarious satisfaction, after
_Alshech_ had, among the Jews, given the honour to truth.




          IV. EXAMINATION OF THE NON-MESSIANIC INTERPRETATIONS.


Passing over mere whims, three explanations present themselves which
require a closer examination, viz.--(1), that which makes the whole
Jewish people the subject; (2), that which refers it to the godly
portion of the Jewish people; and (3), that which refers it to the
collective body of the Prophets. The following reasons militate against
all the three interpretations simultaneously.

1. According to them, the contents of the section in question present
themselves as a mere _fancy_; and its principal thought, the vicarious
suffering of the Servant of God is an absurdity. According to them, the
prophets can no longer be considered as godly men who spake as they
were moved by the Holy Spirit; and their name [Hebrew: nbia], by which
they claimed divine inspiration, is a mere pretence. And this
reflection is, at the same time, cast upon the Lord, who, throughout,
treats these visionaries as organs of immediate divine communications.

2. According to all the three explanations, the subject is not a real
person, but an ideal one, a personified collective. But not one sure
analogous instance can be quoted in favour of a personification carried
on through a whole section, without the slightest intimation, that it
is not a single individual who is spoken of. In ver. 3, the subject is
called [Hebrew: aiw]; in vers. 10 and 12 a soul is ascribed to Him;
grave and death are used so as to imply a subject in the Singular.
Scripture never leaves any thing to be guessed. If we had an allegory
before us, distinct hints as to the interpretation would certainly [Pg
335] not be wanting. It is, _e.g._, quite different in those passages
where the Prophet designates Israel by the name of the Servant of the
Lord. In them, all uncertainty is prevented by the addition of the
names of Jacob and Israel, xli. 8, 9; xliv. 1, 2, 21; xlv. 4; xlviii.
20; and in them, moreover, the Prophet uses the Plural by the side of
the Singular, to intimate that the Servant of the Lord is an ideal
person, a collective, _e.g._, xlii. 24, 25; xlviii. 20, 21; xliii.
10-14.

3. The first condition of the vicarious satisfaction which, according
to our prophecy, is to be performed by the Servant of God, is,
according to ver. 9 ("Because He had done no violence, neither was any
deceit in His mouth"), but more especially still, according to ver. 11
("He, the righteous one, my Servant, shall justify the many") the
absolute righteousness of the suffering subject. He who is himself
sinful cannot undergo punishment for the sins of others. He is, on the
contrary, visited for his own sins, both as a righteous retribution,
and for sanctification. Of such an one that would indeed be true which,
according to the second clause of ver. 4, was only erroneously supposed
in reference to the Servant of God. All the three interpretations,
however, are unable to prove that this condition existed. All the three
interpretations move on the purely human territory; but on that,
absolute righteousness is not to be found. At the very threshold of
Holy Writ, in Gen. ii. and 3, compare v. 3, the doctrine of the
universal sinfulness of mankind meets us; and how deep a knowledge of
sin pervades the Old Testament, is proved by passages such as Gen. vi.
5, viii. 21; Job xiv. 4, xv. 14-16; Ps. xiv., li. 7; Prov. xx. 9. That
is not a soil on which ideas of substitution could thrive.--The
doctrine of a substitution by men is indeed nowhere else found in the
Old Testament; and _Gesenius_, who (l. c., S. 189) endeavoured to prove
that "it is very general" has not adduced any arguments which are
tenable or even plausible. The guilt of the fathers is visited upon the
children, only when the latter walk in the steps of their fathers, and
the latter are first punished; comp. _Genuineness and Authenticity of
the Pentateuch_, Vol. ii. p. 446 ff. The same holds true in reference
to 2 Sam. xxi. 1-14, The evil spirit which filled Saul, pervaded his
family, at the same time, as we here see in the instance of Michal. It
was probably in the [Pg 336] interest of his family, and with their
concurrence, that the wicked deed had been perpetrated. (_Michaelis_
says: "In order that he might appropriate their goods to himself and to
_his family_, under the pretext of a pious zeal for Judah and Israel.")
As Saul himself was already overtaken by the divine judgment, the crime
was punished in the family who were accomplices. In 2 Sam. xxiv. the
people do not suffer as substitutes for the sin, which David had
committed in numbering the people; but the spirit of pride which had
incited the king to number the people, was widely spread among them.
But the fact, that the king himself was punished in his subjects, is
brought out by his beseeching the Lord, in 2 Sam. xxiv. 17, that He
might rather visit the sin directly upon himself The sin of David and
Bathsheba is not atoned for by the death of the child (2 Sam. xii.
15-18), for David had already obtained pardon, ver. 13. It is not the
child which suffers, but David, whose repentance was to be deepened by
this visitation. In the fact, that the whole army must suffer for what
Achan has committed (Josh. vii. 1), a distinct intimation is implied,
that the criminal does not stand alone, but that, to a certain degree,
the whole community was implicated in his guilt. Substitution is quite
out of the question, inasmuch as Achan himself, with his whole family
and posterity, was burnt. Least of all, finally, can Dan. xi. 35 come
into consideration. According to _Gesenius_, it is there said: "And
they of understanding shall fall, in order to purge, purify, and make
white those (the others)." But [Hebrew: bhM] refers rather to the
[Hebrew: mwkiliM] themselves. Thus, nowhere in the Old Testament, is
even the slightest trace found of a satisfaction to be accomplished by
man for man; nor can it be found there, because, from its very
commencement. Scripture most emphatically declares: [Greek: pantas
huph'hamartian einai], Rom. iii. 9.

The explanation, which makes the _Jewish people_ the subject, has
already been overthrown by the parallel passages, before arriving: at
the section under consideration. "Even so far back as chap. xlii. 1,
difficulties are met with," remarks _Beck_. "How is it possible that
the people who, in ver. 19 of that chapter, are described as blind and
deaf, should here appear as being altogether penetrated by the Spirit,
so as to become the teachers of the Gentiles?" "Chap. xlix. is a true
[Pg 337] cross for the interpreters." "Finally, the section, chap. l.,
_Hitzig_ himself is obliged to explain as referring to the Prophet; and
thus this interpretation forfeits the boast of most strictly holding
fast the unity of this notion."

But still more decisively is the interpretation overthrown by the
contents of the section under discussion. The Servant of God has,
according to it, voluntarily taken upon Himself His sufferings
(according to ver. 10, He offers himself as a sacrifice for sin;
according to ver. 12, He is crowned with glory because He has poured
out His soul unto death). Himself sinless, He bears the sins of others,
vers. 4-6, 9. His sufferings are the means by which the justification
of many is effected. He suffers quietly and patiently, ver. 7. Not one
of these four signs can be vindicated for the people of Israel. (a).
The Jews did not go voluntarily into the Babylonish exile, but were
dragged into it by force. (b). The Jewish people were not without sin
in suffering; but they suffered, in the captivity, the punishment of
their own sins. Their being carried away had been foretold by Moses as
a punitive judgment. Lev. xxvi. 14 ff.; Deut. xxviii. 15 ff. xxix. 19
ff., and as such it is announced by all the prophets also. In the
second part, Isaiah frequently reminds Judah that they shall be cast
into captivity by divine justice, and be delivered from it by divine
mercy only; comp. chaps. lvi.-lix., especially chap. lix. 2: "Your
iniquities separate between you and your God, and your sins hide His
face from you that He doth not hear. For your hands are defiled with
blood, and your fingers with iniquity, your lips speak lies, and your
tongue meditates perverseness. Their feet run to evil, and they make
haste to shed innocent blood, their thoughts are thoughts of iniquity,
wasting and destruction are in their paths. The way of peace they know
not, and there is no right in their paths; they pervert their paths;
whosoever goeth therein doth not know peace. Apostacy and denying the
Lord, and departing away from our God, speaking oppression and revolt,
conceiving and uttering from the heart words of falsehood." Comp. chap.
xlii. 24: "Who gave Jacob for a spoil, and Israel to the robbers? Did
not the Lord, He against whom we have sinned, and in whose ways they
would not walk, neither were they obedient unto His law." Farther, [Pg
338] chap. xliii. 26, 27, where the detailed proof that Israel's merits
could not be the cause of their deliverance, inasmuch as they did not
exist at all, is, by the Prophet, wound up by the words: "Put me in
remembrance, let us plead together, declare then that thou mayest be
justified. Thy first father hath sinned, and thy mediators have
transgressed against me. Therefore I profane the princes of the
sanctuary, and give Jacob to the destruction, and Israel to
reproaches." It is solely to the mercy of God that, according to chap.
xlviii. 11, Israel owes deliverance from the severe suffering into
which they fell in the way of their sins. One may confidently assert
there is not a single page in the whole book, which does not offer a
striking refutation of this view. And most miserable are the expedients
to which, in the face of such facts, the defenders of this view betake
themselves. _Rosenmueller_ was of opinion, that the Prophet introduced
those Gentiles only as speaking, who, by this flattery, wished to gain
the favour of the Jews,--without considering that it is just in the
words of the Lord, in ver. 11, that the absolute righteousness of the
Servant of God is most strongly expressed. _Hitzig_ is of opinion, that
the people had indeed suffered for their sins; but that the punishment
had been greater than their sins, and that by this surplus the Gentiles
were benefited. But the Prophet expressly contradicts such a gross
view. He repeatedly declares that the punishment was still mitigated by
mercy; that, in the way of their works, Israel would have found total
destruction. Thus, _e.g._, chap. xlviii. 9: "For my name's sake will I
be long-suffering, and for my praise will I moderate mine anger unto
thee, that I cut thee not off;" chap. i. 9: "Except the Lord of Hosts
had left unto us a very small remnant, we should have been as Sodom; we
should have been like unto Gomorrah." In order to be fully convinced
how much this view of Israel, enforced upon the godly men of the Old
Testament, is in contradiction to their own view, the prayer of Ezra
may still be compared in Neh. ix., especially ver. 20 ff.--(c.) The
sufferings of the Jewish people cannot be vicarious, because they are
destitute of the very first condition of substitution, viz.,
sinlessness and righteousness. That even _Hitzig_ does not venture to
claim for them. But how can an ungodly man, even supposing that his
punishment is too severe, justify others [Pg 339] by a righteousness of
his which does not exist? _Finally_--The fourth sign, patience, so
little belongs to the Jewish people, that it is one of the main tasks
of our Prophet himself to oppose their murmuring impatience; comp.
_e.g._, chap. xlv. 9 ff.

Against the hypothesis that the people are the subject of the prophecy,
there is the circumstance that it carries along with it the unnatural
supposition that, in chap. liii. 1-10, the heathens are introduced as
speaking. Decisive against this supposition are specially the
designation [Hebrew: emi] in ver. 8, and the most forced explanation to
which it compels us, in some verses, especially ver. 2.

The interpretation which considers the godly portion of the people to
be the subject of the prophecy, is overthrown by the fact that,
according to the view of Scripture, even those who, in the ordinary
sense, are righteous, are unable to render a vicarious satisfaction for
others. For such, absolute righteousness is required. But the
"righteous ones" are begotten by sinful seed (Ps. li.), and they have
need daily to pray that God would pardon their secret sins, Ps. xix.
13; they themselves live only by the pardoning mercy of God, and cannot
think of atoning for others, Ps. xxxii. Even for believers, the
captivity is, according to chap. xlii., the merited punishment of their
sins. In that passage, the greatness of the mercy of God is pointed
out, who grants a twofold salvation for sins, while infinite punishment
should be their natural consequence. It is not to a single portion of
the people, but to the whole, that, in the passages formerly quoted,
every share in effecting deliverance and salvation is denied. How
little an absolute righteousness existed in the elect, sufficiently
appears from the fact, that, in the second part, it forms a main object
of the Prophet to oppose their want of courage, their despair and
distrust of God. _Farther_--The ungodly could not by any means consider
the sufferings of the righteous ones as vicarious, because they
themselves suffered as much; and as little could they despise the godly
on account of their sufferings. It is a mere invention, destitute of
every historical foundation, to assert that it was especially the
God-fearing who had to suffer so grievously in the captivity. On the
contrary, their fear of God gained for them the respect of the
Gentiles; and among [Pg 340] their own people also, whose sinful
disposition was broken by the punishment, they occupied an honourable
position. Ezekiel we commonly find surrounded by the elders of the
people, listening to his words; and Daniel, Esther, and Mordecai, Ezra,
and Nehemiah, richly furnished with the goods of this world, enjoyed
high esteem in the Gentile world. The fact that the supporters of this
hypothesis are compelled to have recourse to such an unhistorical
fiction, which has been carried to the extreme, especially by _Knobel_,
sufficiently proves it to be untenable.

In opposition to the interpretation which refers the prophecy to the
collective body of the Prophets, _Hitzig_ very justly remarks: "The
supposition that, by the Servant of God, the prophetic order is to be
understood, is destitute of all foundation and probability." In
commenting on chap. xlii. we remarked, that there are no analogous
cases at all in favour of such a personification of the prophetic
order. Moreover, the defenders of this view commonly deny, at the same
time, the genuineness of the second part. From this stand-point it
becomes still more evident, how untenable this hypothesis is. A
prophetic order can, least of all, be spoken of during the time of the
Babylonish captivity. With the captivity, Prophetism began to die out.
Jeremiah in Jerusalem, and Ezekiel among the exiled, already stood very
much isolated. Jeremiah, during the last days of the Jewish state,
stands out everywhere as a single individual, opposed to the whole mass
of the false prophets. "There is no more any prophet," is, at the time
of the destruction by the Chaldeans, the lamentation of the author of
Ps. lxxiv. in ver. 9. According to an unanimous tradition (comp. 1
Maccab. ix. 27, iv. 46, xiv. 41, and the passages from the Talmud and
other Jewish writings in _Knibbe's_ history of the Prophets, S. 347
ff., and in _Joh. Smithi Dissert. de Prophetis_, in the Appendix to
_Clericus'_ Commentary on the Prophets, chap. xii.), Haggai, Zechariah,
and Malachi were the last of the prophets, and according to the
historical books and their own prophecies, the only prophets of their
time. How, now, were it possible that the Prophet should speak of a
great corporation of the prophets, who become not only the founders and
rulers of the new state, but who are to enlighten all the other nations
of the earth with the light of the time religion, [Pg 341] and
incorporate them into the church of God? Of all that is characteristic
of the vocation of the prophets, nothing is found here; while, on the
other hand, almost everything which is said of the Servant of God is in
opposition to the vocation and destination of the prophets. That which
here, above everything, comes into consideration is the _vicarious
satisfaction_. Chap. vi., where the Prophet when, after having
administered the prophetic office for several years, he beheld the
Lord, exclaims: "Woe is unto me for I am undone, because I am a man of
unclean lips, and dwell in the midst of a people of unclean lips," is
sufficient to show how far the thoughts of such a vicarious
satisfaction were from the prophets. Such is surely not the ground from
which the delusion of being substitutes for others can grow up. All
those who entertained such a delusion, such as _Gichtel_, _Bourignon_,
_Guyon_, were misled into it by proudly shutting their eyes to their
own sinfulness. It would surely be abasing the prophets without any
cause, if we were to assign to them that delusion. Moreover, the hopes
which here, according to these interpreters, are uttered in reference
to the prophetic order, contradict its idea, and institution. A
prophetic pride would here come out, such as is not equalled by
priestly pride in all history. _Schenkel_, no doubt, is right in
remarking against the interpretation which makes the Jewish people the
subject of the prophecy,--an interpretation of which _Hitzig_ is the
representative: "Is it to believed that the prophets, whose object all
along it was to suppress the moral pride of the people, should wantonly
have awakened it by such a thought?" But _Hitzig_ is equally in the
right when, in opposition to _Schenkel_ and others who refer this
prediction to the prophetic order, he remarks: "It is quite obvious,
how very unsuitable it would be to limit the hitherto wretched
condition and the future glory of the people to the prophets, as if
they alone, as true [Greek: katakurieuontes ton kleron], constituted
the people." According to this hypothesis, the prophets are supposed to
flatter themselves with the hope that they would be the rulers of
the state again flourishing, and would celebrate worldly triumphs.
Altogether apart from the folly of this hope, it was entirely opposed
to the destiny of the prophetic order. By divine institution, the
dominion in the Kingdom of God had for ever been given over to
David [Pg 342] and his family. By usurping it, the prophets would
have rebelled against God, whose lights they were called to
uphold.--_Farther_, As the principal sphere of the ministry of the
Servant of God, the heathen world here appears. But with it, the
prophets have, nowhere else, any thing to do; their mission is
everywhere to Israel only.--The sufferings which the prophets had to
endure during the captivity, were not different from those of the
people. Every proof, yea, even every probability, is wanting that,
during the time of the captivity, the prophets--and history mentions
and knows only Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Daniel--were pre-eminently
afflicted. On the contrary, they occupy an honourable position.
Jeremiah receives, after the capture of Jerusalem, proofs of esteem
from Nebuchadnezzar. Daniel is entrusted with the highest public
offices. Ezekiel is held in honour by his compatriots. How then could
the people despise the prophets on account of their sufferings? How
could they imagine that they had been smitten by God? How could they
afterwards conceive the idea that the sufferings of the prophets had a
vicarious character?--To what quarter soever we look, impossibilities
present themselves; and if, moreover, we also look at the parallel
passages, we must indeed wonder, that a hypothesis altogether so
untenable should ever have been listened to.




                            CHAPTER LV. 1-5.


The Lord exhorts those who are anxious to be saved, to appropriate the
blessings of salvation which are so liberally offered, and which,
although bestowed without money and price, can alone truly satisfy the
soul, vers. 1 and 2. For He is to make with them a covenant of
everlasting duration, in which the eternal mercy promised to the family
of David is to be realized, ver. 3. David--such is the salvation in
store for the Church--is to be a witness, prince, and lawgiver of all
the Gentiles who, with joyful readiness, shall unite themselves to
Israel.

[Pg 343]

Ver. 1. "_Ho, all ye that thirst, come ye to the water, and ye that
have no silver, come ye, buy and eat; yea, come, buy wine and milk
without silver and without price._"

The discourse is addressed to the members of the Church pining away in
misery. By the water, salvation is denoted, as is not unfrequently the
case, comp. chap. xii. 3: "And with joy ye shall draw water out of the
wells of salvation," xliv. 3; Ps. lxxxvii. 7, lxxxiv. 7, cvii. 35. The
thirsty one is he who stands in need of salvation. To the words: "Ho,
all ye that thirst, come ye to the water," the Lord refers in John vii.
37: [Greek: ean tis dipsa erchestho pros me kai pineto], where the
[Greek: pros me] had been added from ver. 3. It is to be observed that
Christ there appropriates to himself what Jehovah is here speaking.
_Michaelis_ says: "Christ, in consequence of the highest identity,
makes the words of the Father His own." There is an evident reference
to the same words in Rev. xxi. 6 also: [Greek: ego to dipsonti doso ek
tes peges tou hudatos tes zoes dorean]. Similarly in Rev. xxii. 17:
[Greek: kai ho dipson erchestho, ho thelon labeto hudor zoes dorean].
In a somewhat more distant relation to the words before us, but yet
undeniably depending upon them, is John iv. 10: [Greek: su an etesas
auton kai edoken an soi hudor zon]. Vers. 13, 14: [Greek: pas ho pinon
ek tou hudatos toutou dipsesei palin. hos d'an pie ek tou hudatos, hou
ego doso auto ou me dipsese eis ton aiona]. And so does, in another
aspect. Matt. xi. 28: [Greek: deute pros me hoi kopiontes kai
pephortismenoi kago anapauso humas], which, however, has still nearer
points of resemblance to ver. 3; for [Greek: deute pros me] corresponds
to [Hebrew: lkv ali] in that verse; the words [Greek: kago anapauso
humas], to: "Your soul shall live" there, but yet in such a way that
there is, at the same time, a reference to Jer. vi. 16; the [Greek:
kopiontes kai pephortismenoi] are the thirsty ones in the verse before
us. It is remarkable to see how important this unassuming declaration
was to our Lord, and how much He had it at heart. We are thereby
urgently called upon, by means of deep and earnest study and
meditation, to arrive at the full meaning of the Old Testament, which
is everywhere connected with the New Testament, not only by the strong
and firm ties of express quotations, but also by the nicest and most
tender threads of gentle allusions. Even Matt. v. 6: [Greek: makarioi
hoi peinontes kai dipsontes ten dikaiosunen] comes into a close
relation to our passage, as soon as it is recognized that [Greek:
dikaiosunen] is not the subjective righteousness [Pg 344] which is
excluded from that context, but rather righteousness as a gift of God,
the actual justification, such as takes place in the bestowal of
salvation; so that, hence, the righteousness there corresponds with the
_water_ here. The subsequent "eat" furnishes the foundation for the
fact, that the need of and desire for salvation, is designated by
_hunger_ also,--"_Come ye, buy and eat._" [Hebrew: wbr] "to break," is
used of the appeasing of thirst (comp. Ps. civ. 11), and hunger (comp.
Gen. xlii. 19); and corn is called [Hebrew: wbr] for this reason that
it breaks the hunger. The verb never means "to buy" in general, but
only such a buying as affords the means of appeasing hunger and thirst.
Nor does it, in itself, stand in any relation to corn, except in so far
only as the latter is a chief moans of appeasing hunger. This we see
not only from Ps. civ. 11, but also from that which here immediately
follows, where it is used of the buying of wine and milk. The buying of
necessary provisions is commonly designated by the _Kal_; the selling
by the _Hiphil_. In Gen. xli. 26, the selling too is designated by the
_Kal_. He who causes that one can break or appease, may himself also be
designated as he who breaks or appeases. This verb, so very peculiar,
and the noun [Hebrew: wbr], occur in a certain accumulation, in the
history of Joseph only; elsewhere, their occurrence is sporadic only.
It is then to the hunger of Israel in ancient times, and to its being
appeased by Joseph, that the double [Hebrew: wbrv] alludes; and from
this circumstance also the fact is to be explained, that it is first
used in reference to food; comp. [Hebrew: wbrv vaklv] in our verse,
with [Hebrew: wbr akl] in Gen. xlii. 7-10. Christ is the true Joseph,
who puts an end to the hunger and thirst of the people of God, by
offering true food and true drink.--The word "eat" suggests substantial
food, bread in contrast to the drink by which it is surrounded on both
sides; compare John vi. 35: [Greek: ego eimi ho artos tes zoes. ho
erchomenos pros me ou me peinase] [Hebrew: wbrv] [Greek: kai ho
pisteuon eis eme ou me dipsese popote]. Ver. 55: [Greek: he gar
sarx mou alethos esti brosis, kai to hima mou alethos esti posis]. From
the sequel (comp. vers. 6, 7), it appears that the thrice repeated
_coming_ and the _buying_ are accomplished by true repentance, the
[Greek: metanoia], which is the indispensable condition of the
participation in the salvation. In John vi. 35, the words: [Greek: ho
erchomenos pros me] are explained by: [Greek: ho pisteuon eis eme].
Faith is the soul of repentance.--The circumstance that the [Pg 345]
buying is done without money, intimates that the blessings of salvation
are a pure gift of divine grace. These blessings of salvation are first
designated by water; afterwards, by _wine_ and _milk_,--thus
approximating to those passages in which the blessings of the Kingdom
of Christ appear under the image of a rich repast, to which the members
of the Kingdom are invited as guests, Ps. xxii. 26-30; Matt. viii. 11,
xxii. 2; Luke xiv. 16; Rev. xix. 9.--Some Rationalistic interpreters
understand, by the offered blessings, the salutary admonitions of the
Prophet; but decisive against these are vers. 3 and 11, according to
which it is not present, but future blessings, not words, but real
things which are spoken of, viz., the salvation which is to be brought
through Christ. What that is which constitutes the substance of this
salvation, we learn from chap. liii. It is the redemption and
reconciliation by the Servant of God. Yet we must not, after the manner
of several ancient interpreters, limit ourselves to the "evangelical
righteousness." On the contrary, the whole fulness of the salvation in
Christ is comprehended in it; and according to vers. 4 and 5, this
includes the dominion over the world by the Kingdom of God,--its
dominion over the Gentile world, and the investiture of its members
with the full liberty and glory of the children of God.

Ver. 2. "_Wherefore do ye weigh money for that which is not bread, and
your labour for that which satisfieth not? Hearken, hearken unto me,
and eat ye that which is good, and let your soul delight itself in
fatness._"

From ver. 3, we see that it is not the Prophet, but the Lord who
speaks. "That which is not bread," and "that which satisfieth not," is
something which outwardly has the appearance of good and nutritious
food, and to obtain which the hungry ones therefore strive, and exert
themselves with all their might, but which afterwards shows itself to
be food in appearance only, and which has not the power of satisfying.
"That which is not bread," is, in the first instance, the imagined
salvation which they sought to obtain from idols for much money. This
appears from the intentional literal reference to chap. xlvi. 6, where
the Prophet reproves the folly of those who, in the face of the living
God, "lavish gold out of the bag, and _weigh silver_ in the balance,
and hire a goldsmith, [Pg 346] that he make it a god, work also and
fall down." With perfect justice _Stier_ remarks: "Notwithstanding the
connection with, and allusion to, the circumstances of that time, the
word of the Prophet is to be understood in a general, spiritual way, as
a melancholy, bitter lamentation over the general misery, and man's
deep-rooted perverseness in running with effort and exertion, after
that which is pernicious to the soul, and in serving some Baal better
than Jehovah." "Fatness" occurs as a figurative designation of the
glorious gifts of God, in Ps. xxxvi. 9 also.

Ver. 3. "_Incline your ears and come unto me, hear and your soul shall
live, and I will grant to you an everlasting covenant, the constant
mercies of David._"

The introductory words allude, in a graceful manner, to two Messianic
psalms, and remind us of the fact, that the prophecy before us moves on
the same ground as these psalms. On "incline your ear, and come unto
me, hear," comp. Ps. xlv. 11: "Hear, O daughter, and see, and _incline
thine ear_ (from the fundamental passage, the Singular is here
retained), and forget thy people and thy father's house." On "your soul
shall live," comp. Ps. xxii. 27: "The meek shall eat and be satisfied,
they shall praise the Lord that seek Him, _your heart shall live for
ever_." Analogous are the references to Ps. lxxii. in chap. xi. The
soul _dies_ in care and grief In the words: "I will grant to you," &c.,
there follow the glad tidings which are to heal the dying hearts.
[Hebrew: krt brit] is used of God, even where no reciprocal agreement
takes place, but where He simply confers grace; because every grace
which He bestows imposes, at the same time, an obligation, and may
hence be considered as a covenant. The onesidedness is, in such a case,
indicated by the construction with [Hebrew: l], comp. chap. lxi. 8:
"And I give them their reward in truth, and I make (grant) to them an
everlasting covenant," Jer. xxxii. 40; Ezek. xxxiv. 25; Ps. lxxxix. 4.
Since _to make a covenant_ is here identical with _granting mercy_,
[Hebrew: akrth] may also be connected with the subsequent "the constant
mercies of David," and there is no necessity for supposing a Zeugma.
The everlasting covenant here, is the new covenant in Jer. xxxi. 31-34;
for the words "I _will_ make" show that, here too, a new covenant is
spoken of. The substance of the covenant to be made is expressed in the
words: [Pg 347] "The constant mercies of David," &c. By "David," many
interpreters here understand the descendant of David, the Messiah, who,
in other passages also, _e.g._, Jer. xxx. 9, bears the name of His
type. Even _Abenezra_ refers to the fact that, in ver. 4, the Messiah
is necessarily required as the subject. The _constant_ mercies of David
are, according to this view--in parallelism with the "everlasting
covenant"--the mercies constantly continuing, in contrast to the merely
transitory mercies, such as had been those of the first David.
According to the opinion of other interpreters, David designates here,
as in Hos. iii. 5, the family of David who, in Ps. xviii., and in a
series of other psalms, speaks in the name of his whole family. As
regards the sense, this explanation arrives at the same result. For,
according to it, the Messiah is He in whom the Davidic house attains to
its fall destiny, the channel through which the mercies of David flow
in upon the Church. For the latter interpretation, however, is decisive
the evident reference to the divine promise to David, in 2 Sam. vii.,
especially vers. 15, 16: "And my mercy shall not depart from him (thy
race) ... and constant ([Hebrew: namN]) is thine house, and thy kingdom
for ever before thee, thy throne shall be firm for ever;" compare Ps.
lxxxix. 29: "My mercy will I keep for him for evermore, and my covenant
is constant in him." Ps. lxxxix. 2, 50: "Lord, where are thy former
mercies which thou swarest unto David in thy truth?" likewise suggest
that, by David, not simply Christ is to be understood, but the Davidic
family. The constant mercies of David are, accordingly, the mercies
which have been sworn to the Davidic house as _constant_, which,
therefore, can never rest until Christ has appeared with His
everlasting Kingdom, in which they find their true and full
realization. In the expectation of the Messiah from the house of David,
the prophecy under consideration goes hand in hand with chap. xi. 1,
where the Messiah appears as a twig which proceeds from the cut-down
tree of Jesse; and with chap. ix. 6, according to which He sits on the
throne of David. This passage alone is fully sufficient against those
(_Ewald_, _Umbreit_, and others) who advance the strange assertion,
that the Prophet had altogether given up the idea of a Messiah from the
house of David, and had distributed His property between Cyrus and the
prophetic order, [Pg 348] or the pious portion of the people. It is of
the greatest importance for the explanation of those passages which
treat of the Servant of God, and forms a point of union for the
Messianic passages of the first and second part. The passage before us
is quoted in Acts xiii. 34: [Greek: hoti de anestesen auton ek nekron,
meketi mellonta hupostrephein eis diaphthoran houtos, eireken. hoti
doso humin ta hosia Dabid ta pista]. [Greek: hOsia Dabid], _sancta
Davidis_, are the sacred, inviolable, inalienably guaranteed mercies
and blessings which have been promised to the house of David. As
certainly as these must be granted, so certainly Christ, who was to
bring them, could not remain in the power of death.

Ver. 4. "_Behold, I give him for a witness to the people, for a prince
and lawgiver of the people._"

Here, and in ver. 5, we have the expansion of the mercies of David.
Their greatness and glory appear from the circumstance that, around his
scion, the whole heathen world, which hitherto was hostile and
pernicious to the Church of God, will gather. The Suffix in [Hebrew:
nttiv] can refer only to David, or the family of David. From the
connection with chap. liii., it appears that it is in his descendant,
the righteous One, to whom the heathen and their kings do homage, that
David will attain to the dignity here announced. [Hebrew: ed] has no
other signification than "witness." Every true doctrine bears the
character of a witness. The teacher sent by God does not teach on his
own authority, [Greek: a me eoraken embateuon], but only witnesses what
he has seen and heard. With a reference to, and in explanation of the
passage before us, Christ says to Pilate, in John xviii. 37: "For this
end was I born, and for this cause I came into the world, that I should
bear _witness_ unto the truth." And the passages, Rev. i. 5: "And from
Jesus Christ who is the faithful witness," and Rev. iii. 14: "These
things says the Amen, the faithful and true witness," likewise point
back to the passage before us; compare farther, John iii. 11, 32, 33.
In John xviii. 37, Rev. i. 5, His being a witness is, just as in the
passage before us, connected with His being a King; so that the
reference to this passage cannot be at all doubtful. It is
intentionally that [Hebrew: ed] is put at the head. It is intended to
intimate that the future dominion of the Davidic dynasty over the
heathen world shall be essentially different from that which, in former
times, it exercised [Pg 349] over some neighbouring people. It is not
based upon the power of arms, but upon the power of truth. He in whom
the Davidic dynasty is to centre shall connect the prophetic with the
regal office; just as already, in the prophecy of the Shiloh, in Gen.
xlix. 10, the prophetic office is concealed behind the royal. The
contrast to the first David can the less be doubtful, that, while
[Hebrew: ed] is never applied to him, it is just the subsequent
[Hebrew: ngid] which, in a series of passages, is ascribed to him. In 2
Sam. vi. 21, David himself says that the Lord appointed him to be
_ruler_ over the people of the Lord, over Israel; in 2 Sam. vii. 8,
Nathan says: "I took thee from the sheep-cot to be _ruler_ over my
people, over Israel;" comp. 1 Sam. xxv. 30; 2 Sam. v. 5. In those
passages, however, David is always spoken of as a ruler over Israel; so
that even as regards the [Hebrew: ngid], the second David, the prince
of the _people_, is not only placed on a level with the first David,
but is elevate d above him. For the dominion by force which David
exercised over some heathen nations, [Hebrew: ngid] was the less
appropriate designation, inasmuch as it designates the ruler as the
chief of his people.

Ver. 5. "_Behold, thou shall call a nation that thou knowest not, and
nations that knew not thee shall run unto thee, because of the Lord thy
God, and of the Holy One of Israel, for He adorneth thee._"

The words here are addressed to the true Israel, to the exclusion of
those souls who are cut off from among their people, compare Ps.
lxxiii. 1, where Israel and those that are of a clean heart go hand in
hand,--and, in substance, they also were addressed in vers. 1 and 2.
For the thirsty ones, who are there called upon to partake of the
blessings so liberally offered by the Lord, are just the members of the
Church. In connection with that glorification of David, the Church
shall invite nations from a great distance, who were hitherto unknown
to it, to its communion; and those nations who hitherto scarcely knew
by name the Church of God shall joyfully and willingly comply with the
invitation; comp. chap. ii. 2. This great change proceeds from the
Lord, the Almighty and Holy One, who, as the protector and Covenant-God
of His Church, has resolved to glorify it; for _He adorneth thee_. This
glorification consists, according to chap. iv. 2, in the appearance of
[Pg 350] Christ, the immediate consequence of which is the conversion
of the heathen world.

We must now review that exposition by which Rationalism has endeavoured
to deprive our passage of its Messianic import,--an attempt in which
_Grotius_ led the way. _Gesenius_, whom _Hitzig_, _Maurer_, _Ewald_,
and _Knobel_ follow, translates in vers. 3 and 4: "That I may make with
you an everlasting covenant, may show to you constant mercies, as once
to David. Behold, I have made him a ruler of the nations, a prince and
lawgiver of the nations," and refers both of the verses to the first
David. In ver. 5, then, the mercy is to follow which, in some future
time, God will bestow upon the whole people, as gloriously as once upon
the single David. But this explanation proves itself to be, in every
aspect, untenable.[1]

We are the less entitled to put "mercies _like_ David's" instead of
"the mercies of David," that these mercies are, elsewhere also,
mentioned in reference to the eternal dominion promised to David for
his family; comp. Ps. lxxxix. 2, 50. With the epithet, "constant,"
these interpreters do not know what to do. Apart from the promise of
the eternal dominion of his house, no constant mercies can, in the case
of David, be pointed out which would be equally bestowed upon the
people, and upon him. Moreover, [Hebrew: namniM] distinctly points back
to 2 Sam. vii. Ver. 4 forms, according to this explanation, "a
historical reminiscence, most unsuitable in the flow of a prophetic
discourse" (_Umbreit_). But what in itself is quite conclusive is the
circumstance, that the first David could not by any possibility be
designated as the _witness_ of the Gentile nations. It indeed sounds
rather _naive_ that _Knobel_, after having endeavoured to explain
[Hebrew: ed] of the "opening up of the law," feels himself obliged to
add: "The word does not, however, occur anywhere else in this
signification." Nor could David, without farther limitation, be
designated as "the prince and lawgiver of the _peoples_;" and that so
much the more [Pg 351] that, in ver. 5, there is an invitation to the
Gentile world, and that, in ver. 4, too, the Gentile world, in the
widest sense, is to be thought of.

After the promise, there follows, in vers. 6-13, the admonition to
repentance based upon it. Repent ye, for the Kingdom of heaven is at
hand, vers. 6, 7. Do not doubt that the Kingdom of heaven is at hand,
because it does not seem probable to you. For the counsels of God go
beyond all the thoughts of men; and, therefore. He and His work must
not be judged by a human measure, vers. 8, 9. With Him, word and deed
are inseparably connected, vers. 10, 11. This will be manifested in
your redemption and glorification, vers. 12, 13.



[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_ already remarked in opposition to it: "This
exposition is rather far fetched, and is the weakest of all that can be
advanced. I add, that the constancy of the promises given to David does
not appear, if we exclude the Kingdom of the Messiah. But are any other
promises of constant and eternal blessings, such as are here promised,
to be thought of?"]




                      THE PROPHECY--CHAP. LXI. 1-3.


As in chaps. xlix. and l., so here, the Servant of God is introduced as
speaking, and announces to the Church what a glorious office the Lord
had bestowed upon Him, namely, to deliver them from the misery in which
they had hitherto been lying, and to work a wonderful change in their
condition. In vers. 4-9, the Prophet takes the word, and describes the
salvation to be bestowed by the Servant of God. In vers. 10 and 11, the
Church appears, and expresses her joy and gratitude.

According to the Jewish and Rationalistic interpreters, the Prophet
himself is supposed to be speaking in vers. 1-3. That opinion was last
expressed by _Knobel_: "The author places before his promises a
remembrance of his vocation as a preacher of consolation." In favour of
the Messianic interpretation, in which our Lord himself preceded His
Church (Luke iv. 17-19), are conclusive, not only the parallel
passages, but also the contents of the prophecy itself, which go far
beyond the prophetic territory, and the human territory generally. The
speaker designates himself as He who is called, not merely to announce
the highest blessings to the Church, [Pg 352] but actually to grant
them. He does not represent himself as a mere Evangelist, but rather as
a Saviour.

Ver. 1. "_The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me, because the Lord
hath anointed me to preach glad tidings unto the meek; He hath sent me
to bind up the broken-hearted, to proclaim liberty to the captives, and
opening to them that are bound._"

On the words: "The Spirit of the Lord Jehovah is upon me," compare
chap. xi. 2, xlii. 1. [Hebrew: ieN] always means "because of" The whole
succeeding clause stands instead of a noun, so that, in substance,
"because of" is equivalent to "because;" but it never can mean
"therefore." Nor would the latter signification afford a good sense.
The verb [Hebrew: mwH] must, in that case, be subjected to arbitrary
explanations. The anointing, whether it occurs as a symbolical action
really carried out, or as a mere figure, is always a designation of the
gifts of the Holy Spirit; compare 1 Sam. x. 1, xvi. 13, 14, and remarks
on Dan. ix. 24. Since, then, the anointing is identical with the
bestowal of the Spirit, the words: "because the Lord hath anointed me"
must not be isolated, but must be understood in close connection with
the subsequent words; so that the sense is: And He hath, for this
reason, endowed me with His Spirit, in order that I may preach good
tidings, &c. The [Hebrew: enviM] are the [Greek: praeis] in Matt. v. 5;
[Hebrew: eni] and [Hebrew: env] are never confounded with one another.
The LXX., whom Luke follows, have [Greek: ptochois]. This rendering
does not differ so much from the original text as to make it appear
expedient to give up the version at that time received. In the world of
sin, the meek are, at the same time, those who are suffering; and the
glad tidings which imply a contrast to their misery, show that, here
especially, the meek are to be conceived of as sufferers. The [Hebrew:
enviM], in contrast to the wicked, appear, in chap. xi. also, as the
people of the Messiah.--"The binding up"--_Stier_ remarks--"already
passes over into the actual bestowal of that which is announced." The
term [Hebrew: qra drvr] is taken from the Jubilee year, which was a
year of general deliverance for all those who, on account of debts, had
become slaves; compare Lev. xxv. 10: "And ye shall hallow the fiftieth
year, and proclaim liberty throughout the land for all the inhabitants
thereof; it shall be a jubilee year unto you, and ye [Pg 353] shall
return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man
unto his family." Such a great year of liberty is both to be proclaimed
and to be brought about by the Servant of God. For He does not announce
any thing which He does not, at the same time, grant, as is clearly
shown by ver. 3. His saying is based upon His being and nature; He
delivers from the service of the world, and brings into the glorious
liberty of the children of God.--Most of the modern interpreters agree
with the ancient versions in declaring it to be wrong to divide the
word [Hebrew: pqHqvH], although this writing is found in most of the
manuscripts. The word is, "by its form of reduplication, the most
emphatic term for the most complete opening," and designates, "opening,
unclosing of every kind, of the eyes, ears, and heart, of every barrier
and tie from within, or from without." The LXX., proceeding upon the
fact that [Hebrew: pqH] occurs, with especial frequency, of the opening
of the eyes, translate: [Greek: kai tuphlois anablepsin]. Luke does not
wish to set aside this version, because it gives one feature of the
sense; and partly also because of the close resemblance to the parallel
passage, chap. xlii. 7, which, in this way, was brought in and
connected with the passage under consideration. But since outward
deliverance and redemption are, in the first instance, to be thought
of, when opening to the captives is spoken of, be, in order to complete
the sense, adds: [Greek: aposteilai tethrausmenous en aphesei],
borrowing the expression from the Alexand. Vers. itself in chap. lviii.
6.

Ver. 2. "_To proclaim a year of acceptance to the Lord, and a day of
vengeance to our God, to comfort all that mourn._"

"A year ... to the Lord" is a year when the Lord shows himself gracious
and merciful to His people; compare chap. xlix. 8. The words farther
still allude to the Jubilee year; and it is in consequence of this
allusion, that we can account for its being a _year_ instead of a
_time_, indefinitely. In that year, a complete _restitutio in integrum_
took place. It was, for all in misery, a year of mercy, a type of the
times of refreshing (Acts iii. 19) which the Lord grants to His Church,
after it has been exercised by the Cross. Hand in hand with the year of
mercy goes the day of vengeance. When the Lord shows mercy to the meek,
and to them that mourn, this shall, at the same time, be accompanied by
a manifestation of anger [Pg 354] against the enemies of God, and of
His Church. The one cannot be thought of without the other. The mercy
of the Lord towards His people is, among other things also, manifested
in His sitting in judgment upon His and their enemies, upon the proud
world which afflicts and oppresses them. It is only in this respect
that the vengeance here comes into consideration; and it is for this
reason also, that the first feature at once reappears in the third
verse. The Lord, in quoting the verse, limits himself to the first
clause, "His first coming into the world was in the form of meekness,"
and, therefore, in the meantime, the bright side only is brought out.

Ver. 3. "_To put upon them that mourn in Zion,--to give them a crown
for ashes, oil of joy for mourning, garment of praise for a spirit of
heaviness; and they shall be called terebinths of righteousness,
planting of the Lord for glorifying._"

It is in this verse that it comes clearly out, that the speaker is not
merely to announce the mercy of God, but, at the same time, to bestow
it; that the announcement is not an empty one, but one which brings
along with it that which is promised; that it is not a Prophet or
Evangelist who speaks, but the Saviour. Such a change cannot be
effected by merely _announcing_ it. Everywhere, in the second part, it
is brought about, not by words, but by deeds. How were it possible that
by mere words, as long as the reality stood in glaring contrast to
them, the believers could become terebinths of righteousness, a
glorious planting of the Lord?--The connection of the two verbs
[Hebrew: wvM] and [Hebrew: ntN] is to be accounted for from the
circumstance, that the pronoun suited the first noun only--the ornament
for the head. It is only when [Hebrew: wvM] is understood in the sense,
"to put upon," or, "to put on," that there is a sufficient reason for
adding [Hebrew: ntN]; but that is not the case when it is taken in the
signification "to grant," "to appoint." [Hebrew: par] "crown," and
[Hebrew: apr] "ashes," are connected with one another, because mourners
were accustomed to strew ashes on their heads. The expression "oil of
joy," which is to be explained from the custom of people anointing
themselves with oil in cases of joy, is taken from Ps. xlv. 8. As the
Messiah there appears as the possessor of the oil of joy, so, here, He
appears as the bestower. In chap. lv. 3, there is [Pg 355] likewise an
allusion to Ps. xlv., and along with it, to Ps. xxii. The "spirit of
heaviness" refers to chap. xlii. 3. The fact that, instead of it, they
receive "garments of praise," intimates that they shall be altogether
clothed with praise, songs of praise for the divine goodness which
manifested itself in them; on the garments as symbols of the condition,
compare remarks on Rev. vii. 14. The "righteousness" which is
appropriate to the spiritual terebinths, is the actual justification,
which the Lord grants to His people at the appearance of the Messiah.
There is in it an allusion to the planting of paradise; God now
prepares for himself a new paradisaical plantation, consisting of
living trees.

[Pg 356]




                         THE PROPHET ZEPHANIAH.


By the inscription, the Prophet's origin is, in a way rather uncommon,
traced back to his fourth ancestor, Hezekiah,--no doubt the king. He
appeared as a prophet under the reign of Josiah--before the time,
however, at which the reforms of that king had attained their
completion, which took place in the 18th year of his reign--and, hence,
prophesied, like his predecessor Habakkuk, in the view of the Chaldean
catastrophe. The prophecy begins with threatening judgment upon the
sinners, and closes with announcing salvation to the believers,--a
circumstance which proves that it forms one whole. The threatening is
distinguished from that of Habakkuk by the circumstance, that it has
more of a general comprehensive character, and does not, as is done in
Habakkuk, view the Chaldean catastrophe as a particular historical
event. It is not an incidental circumstance, that the Chaldeans are not
expressly mentioned by Zephaniah, as is done by Habakkuk, and was done
by Isaiah. The Prophet can, therefore, have had them in view as being,
_in the first instance_ only, the instruments of Divine punishment.

The prophecy begins, in chap. i. 2, 3, with announcing the judgment
impending over the whole world. Then, the Prophet shows how it
manifests itself in Judah; first, in general outlines, vers. 4-7; then,
in detail, vers. 8-18. In close connection, this is followed by a call
to repent, in chap. ii. 1-3. This call is founded on the fearful
character of the impending judgment which, according to vers. 4-15,
will be inflicted not only upon Judah, but also upon the world, and
will especially bring destruction upon all the neighbouring nations: in
the [Pg 357] West, upon the Philistines; in the East, upon Ammon and
Moab; in the South, on Cush; in the North, upon Nineveh, upon whose
destruction the Prophet especially dwells, since, up to that time, it
had been the bearer of the world's power.

In chap. iii., in the first instance, the threatening against Judah is
resumed. Apostate Jerusalem, corrupt in its head and members,
irresistibly hastens on towards judgment. But, notwithstanding, "the
afflicted and poor people of the land" shall not despair. On the
contrary, as salvation cannot proceed from the midst of the people,
they are to put their trust in the Lord. By His judgments (viz., those
declared in chap. ii., which at last shall bring forth the peaceable
fruits of righteousness, compare Isa. xxvi. 9: "For when thy judgments
are in the earth, the inhabitants of the world learn righteousness")
will He break the pride of the Gentile world, and bring about their
conversion,--and the converted Gentile world will bring back to
Jerusalem the scattered Congregation. Being purified and justified, it
will then enjoy the full mercy of the Lord.

The principal passage is chap. iii. 8-13.

Ver. 8. "_Therefore wait ye upon me, saith the Lord, until the day that
I rise up to the prey; for my right is_ (_i.e._, the exercise of my
right consists in this) _to gather the nations, and to assemble the
kingdoms, to pour out upon them mine indignation, all the heat of mine
anger; for all the earth shall be devoured by the fire of my jealousy._
Ver. 9. _For then will I turn unto the nations a clean lip, that they
may all call upon the name of the Lord, to serve Him with one
shoulder._ Ver. 10. _From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia shall they
bring my suppliants, the daughter of my dispersed for a meat-offering
to me._ Ver. 11. _In that day shall thou not be ashamed for all thy
doings wherein thou hast transgressed against me; for then will I take
away out of the midst of thee them that proudly rejoice in thee, and
thou shall no more be haughty on mine holy mountain._ Ver. 12. _And I
leave in the midst of thee an afflicted and poor people, and they trust
in the name of the Lord._ Ver. 13. _The remnant of Israel shall not do
iniquity nor speak lies; neither shall a deceitful tongue be found in
their mouth; for they shall feed and lie down, and none shall make them
afraid._"

[Pg 358]

Zephaniah, who opens the series of the prophets who are preeminently
dependent upon other prophets, just as Habakkuk closes the series of
those pre-eminently independent, leans, in this section, chiefly upon
Isaiah; and it is from this circumstance that it appears, that the
person of the Messiah, although not appearing here, stands in the
background and forms the invisible centre.

"_Therefore_" ver. 8: Since the salvation cannot proceed from the midst
of the people, inasmuch as, in the way of their works, they receive
nothing but destructive punishment. On the words: "Wait ye upon me,"
compare Hab. ii. 3. "The day that the Lord rises up to the prey" is the
time when He will begin His great triumphal march against the Gentile
world. With the words: "For my right," &c., a new argument for the call
"Wait ye upon me," commences. But this does not by any means close with
the 8th verse, but goes on to the end of ver. 10. First: Wait, for I
will judge the nations. It is not without meaning that, as regards your
hope, I refer you to the judgment upon the Gentiles; for, in
consequence of this judgment, their conversion will take place, and a
consequence of their conversion is, that they bring back to Zion her
scattered members. In the thought, that the judgments upon the Gentile
world will break their hardness of heart, and prepare them for their
conversion, Zephaniah follows Isaiah, who, _e.g._ in chap. xix.,
exemplifies it in the case of Egypt, and in chap. xxiii. in that of
Tyre. The bruised reed and the faintly burning wick is not merely a
designation of the single individuals who have been endowed with the
right disposition for the kingdom of God, but of whole nations. "The
clean lip" in ver. 9 forms the contrast to the unclean lips in Is. vi.
With unclean lips they had, in the time of the long-suffering of God,
invoked their idols, Ps. xvi. 4. On the words: "To serve Him with one
shoulder," comp. Is. xix. 23: "And Egypt serves with Asshur." The
words: "From beyond the rivers of Ethiopia," in ver. 10, rest on Is.
xviii. 1. In both of the passages, Ethiopia is the type of the whole
Gentile world to be converted in future. In Is. xviii. Ethiopia offers
itself and all which it has to the Lord; here it brings the scattered
members of the community of the Israelitish people to the Kingdom of
God. [Hebrew: etr] always means "to supplicate," [Pg 359] never "to
burn incense." Ezek. viii. 11 must thus be translated: "Every man, his
censer in his hand, and the _supplication_ of the cloud of incense went
up;" compare remarks on Rev. v. 8. The dispersed members of the Church
_supplicate_ that the Lord would again receive them into His communion
(compare Hos. xiv. 3; Jer. xxxi. 9, 18; Zech. xii. 10); and these
supplications cannot remain without an answer, since they from whom
they proceed stand in a close relation to the Lord. "The daughter of my
dispersed" is the daughter or communion, consisting of the dispersed of
the Lord, just as in the phrase "the daughter of the Chaldeans," the
Chaldeans themselves are the daughter or virgin. The designation, in
itself, plainly suggests the dispersed members of the old Congregation,
inasmuch as they only can be designated as the dispersed of the Lord.
To this, moreover, must be added the reference to Deut. iv. 27: "And
the Lord _disperses_ you among the nations;" xxviii. 64: "And the Lord
_disperses_ thee among all the nations from the one end of the earth
even unto the other,"--an announcement which, at the time of Zephaniah,
had already been fulfilled upon the ten tribes, and the fulfilment of
which was soon to commence upon Judah. It is only when the members of
the old Congregation are understood by the suppliants and dispersed,
that the call, "Wait ye upon me" is here established and confirmed. The
offering of the meat-offering signifies, in the symbolism of the Mosaic
law, diligence in good works, such as is to be peculiar to the
redeemed. A single manifestation of it is the missionary zeal which is
here shown by the converted Gentiles.

In harmony with the Song of Solomon, Isaiah announces in several
passages, that the converted Gentiles shall, at some future period,
labour for the restoration of Israel; compare the remarks on Is. xi.
12. Zephaniah here specially refers to the remarkable passage, Is.
lxvi. 18-21, which we must here subject to a somewhat closer
examination: Ver. 18. "And I ... their works and their thoughts; _the
time cometh to gather_ all Gentiles and tongues, and they come and
_see_ my glory." The first hemistich still belongs to the threatening.
The holy God and unholy men, the unholy members of the Church to which
the Lord spake: "Ye shall be holy, for I am holy," and their sinful
thoughts and words are simply placed beside one another, [Pg 360]
other, and it is left to every one to draw from it the inference as to
the fate awaiting them. "I and their works"--what an immense contrast,
a contrast which must be adjusted by the judgment! With the
threatening, the Prophet then connects, by a suitable contrast to the
rejection of a great part of the covenant-people, the calling of the
Gentiles. The glory of the Lord, which the Gentiles see, is His glory
which, up to that time, was concealed, but is now manifested; compare
Is. xl. 5, lx. 2, lii. 10, liii. 1. Ver. 19. "And I set a sign among
them, and send from among them escaped ones unto the nations, to
Tarshish, &c., to the isles afar off that have not heard my fame,
neither have seen my glory, and they declare my glory among the
Gentiles,"--The suffix in [Hebrew: bhM] can refer to those only from
among the nations and tongues who have come and seen the glory of God.
They are sent out to bring the message of the living God, the message
of salvation to those also who hitherto have not come. By the
demonstration of the Spirit and power, they are marked out as blessed
of the Lord, as His servants, separated from the world given up to
destruction. Just as the wicked, the servants of the prince of this
world, have their _mark_, Gen. iv. 50, so have the servants of God
theirs also, which may be recognised by all who are well disposed. It
is only by one's own fault, and at one's own risk, that the sign is not
understood. The fact that "unto the nations" forms the beginning, and
the "isles afar off"--isles in the sea of the world, kingdoms--the
close, shows that the single names, Tarshish, &c., are only
individualizations. In the following verse, too, all the heathens
are spoken of Ver. 20: "And they bring, out of all nations, your
brethren for a meat-offering unto the Lord, upon horses, &c., to
my holy mountain to Jerusalem, as the children of Israel bring the
meat-offering in a clean vessel unto the house of the Lord." It is in
this verse that it clearly appears, that Zephaniah depends upon it; and
it is by the offering of the spiritual meat-offering that his
dependence is recognized. The subject in "they bring" is the Gentiles,
to whom the message of salvation has been brought. They, having
themselves attained salvation, offer to the Lord, as a meat-offering,
the former members of His Kingdom who were separated from it. It is
they, not the Gentiles who have become believers, who in the second [Pg
361] part of Isaiah, are throughout designated as the _brethren_.
Salvation is first to pass from Israel to the Gentiles, and shall then,
from them, return to Israel. The two verses before us thus contain a
sanction for the mission among the heathens and among Israel. Vers. 18
and 19 divide the conversion of the Gentiles into two main stations; it
is only when the Church has arrived at the second, that the missionary
work among Israel will fully thrive and prosper. To the _clean vessel_
in which the outward sacrifice was offered, correspond the faith and
love with which they, who were formerly heathens, offer the spiritual
meat-offering. Ver. 21: "And of them also will I take for Levitical
priests, saith the Lord." Of them, _i.e._, of those who formerly were
heathens; for it is to them that, in the words preceding, a priestly
function, viz., the offering of the meat-offering, is assigned. Of them
_also_; not merely from among the old covenant-people, to whom, under
the former dispensation, the priestly office was limited. The fact that
the priests are designated as Levitical priests, is intended to keep
out the thought that the point in question related only to priests in a
lower sense, beside whom the Levitical priesthood, attached to natural
descent, would continue to exist in full vigour. Priests with full
dignities and rights are here so much the more required, that,
according to what precedes, the point in question does not refer merely
to a personal relation to the Lord, to immediate access to the throne
of grace, but to the priestly office proper.

Vers. 11-13 describe the internal condition of the redeemed Church of
the future,--a condition so different from the present one. The
expression, "they that proudly rejoice in them," is from Is. xiii. 3.
[Hebrew: ki] in ver. 13 is to be accounted for from the fact, that
wherever there exists the blessing promised by the Law of God (Lev.
xxvi. 6) to faithfulness, faithfulness itself must exist.

In ver. 14 ff., the Jerusalem of the future is addressed; compare the
expression, "at that time," ver. 20.

[Pg 362]





                         THE PROPHET JEREMIAH.




                      GENERAL PRELIMINARY REMARKS.


In Malachi iii. 1, the Lord promises that He would send His messenger
who should prepare the way before _Him_, who was to come to His temple,
judging and punishing; vers. 23, 24 (iv. 5, 6): that before the coming
of His great and dreadful day, before He smites the land with a curse,
He would send another Elijah, who should bring back the heart of the
fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their
fathers. Even before this prophecy was expressed in words, it had
_actually_ been given in the existence of Jeremiah, who, during the
whole long period of forty-one years, before the destruction, announced
the judgments of the Lord,--who, with burning zeal and ardent love to
the people, preached repentance,--and who, even after the destruction,
sought the small remnant that had been left, and was anxious to secure
it against the new day of the Lord, which, by its obstinate
impenitence, it was drawing down upon itself. It is this typical
relation of Jeremiah to John the Baptist and Christ, of which the
Jewish tradition had an anticipation, although it misunderstood and
expressed it in a gross, outward manner, by teaching that, at the end
of days, Jeremiah would again appear on earth,--it is this, which
invests with a peculiar charm the contemplation of his ministry, and
the study of his prophecies.

The name of the Prophet is to be explained from Exod. xv. 1, from which
it is probably taken. It signifies "The Lord throws." He who bore it
was consecrated to that God who with an almighty hand throws to the
ground all His enemies. From chap. i. 10: "See, I set thee to-day over
the nations [Pg 363] and over the kingdoms, to root out and to pull
down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to plant," it appears
that it was by a dispensation of divine providence, that the Prophet
bore this name with full right, and that the character of his mission
is thereby designated. The judging and destructive activity which the
Prophet, as an instrument of God, is to exercise, is here not only
placed at the commencement, but four appellations are also devoted to
it, whilst only two are devoted to his healing and planting activity.
As the object of the _throwing_, we have to conceive, not of the
unfaithful covenant-people only. This appears from the mention of the
_nations and kingdoms_ here, and farther, from ver. 14, where the Lord
says to the Prophet: "Out of the North the evil breaks forth upon all
the inhabitants of the earth." To be the herald of the judgment to be
executed upon the whole world by the Chaldeans, was so much the destiny
of the Prophet, that, in chap. i. 3, the eleventh year of Zedekiah, in
which this judgment was brought to a close, as far as Judah was
concerned, is mentioned as the closing point of his ministry. The
Prophet, as is reported by the book itself, still continued his
ministry even among the remnant of the people; but that is lost sight
of The "carrying away of Jerusalem" is treated as the great closing
point; just as, in a manner altogether similar, it is, in the case of
Daniel, in chap. i. 21, the year of Israel's deliverance, although,
according to chap. x. 1, his prophetic ministry extended beyond that
period.

Jeremiah was called to his office when still a youth, in the 13th year
of king Josiah, and hence one year after the first reformation of this
king, who, as early as in the 16th year of his life, and the 8th of his
reign, which lasted 31 years, began to seek the Lord. A king such as
he, unto whom no king before him was like, who turned to the Lord with
all his heart, and with all his soul, and with all his might, (2 Kings
xxiii. 25), in the midst of an evil and adulterous generation, is a
remarkable phenomenon, as little conceivable from natural causes as the
existence of Melchizedec without father, without descent--isolated from
all natural development--in the midst of the Canaanites who, with rapid
strides and irresistibly, hastened on to the completion of their sin.
His existence has the same root as that of Jeremiah,--a fact which
becomes the [Pg 364] more evident when we take into consideration the
connection of the Regal and Prophetical offices in Christ for the
salvation of the people hastening anew to its destruction, and the
faithfulness of the Covenant-God, and His long-suffering which makes
every effort to lead the apostate children to repentance. The zeal of
both, of Josiah and Jeremiah,--although supported by manifold
assistance from other quarters, as _e.g._ by the prophetess Huldah and
the prophet Zephaniah--was unable to stem the tide of prevailing
corruption, and, hence, to stop the tide of the divine judgments. The
corruption was so deeply rooted, that only single individuals could be
saved, like brands from the burning. It had made fearful progress under
the protracted reign of Manasseh, whose disposition must be regarded as
a product of the spirit of the time then prevailing, of which he must
not be considered as the creator, but as the representative only, 2
Kings xxiii. 26, 27, xxiv. 3, 4. The scanty fruits of his late
conversion had been again entirely consumed under the short reign of
his wicked son Amon; it had indeed so little of a comprehensive or
lasting influence, that the author of the Book of Kings thought himself
entitled altogether to pass it over. It was even difficult to put
limits to outward idolatry; and how imperfectly he succeeded in this,
is seen from the prophecies of Jeremiah uttered after the reformation.
And even where he was successful in his efforts; even where an emotion
was manifested, a wish to return to the living fountain which they had
forsaken, even there, the corruption soon broke forth again, only in a
different form. With deep grief, Jeremiah reprovingly reminds the
people of this, whose righteousness was like the morning dew, in chap.
iii. 4, 5: "Hast thou not but lately called me: My Father, friend of my
youth, thou? Will He reserve His anger for ever, will He keep it to the
end? Behold, thus thou spakest, and soon thou didst the evil, didst
accomplish"--an _accomplishment_ quite different from that of the
ancestor. Gen. xxxii. 29. Since the disease had not been healed, but
had only been driven out from one part of the diseased organism, the
foolish inclination to idolatry was followed by as foolish a confidence
in the miserable righteousness by works, in the divine election,--the
offering up of sacrifices, &c., being considered as the sole condition
of its validity. "Trust ye not in lying words"--so [Pg 365] the Prophet
is obliged to admonish them in chap. vii. 4--"saying, The temple of the
Lord, the temple of the Lord, the temple of the Lord are they" (the
people imagined that they could not be destroyed, because the Lord had,
according to their opinion, for ever established His residence among
them; compare 1 Cor. iii. 17; 1 Tim. iii. 15). "Thou sayest, I am
innocent; His anger hath entirely turned from me; behold I plead with
thee, because thou sayest: I have not sinned," chap. ii. 35. "To what
purpose shall there come for me incense from Sheba, and sweet cane, the
goodly, from a far country? Your burnt-offerings are not acceptable,
nor your sacrifices pleasant unto me," chap. vi. 20. Towards the end of
Josiah's reign, the approaching judgment of God upon Judah became more
perceptible. The former Asiatic dominion of the Assyrians passed over
entirely to the Chaldeans, whose fresh and youthful strength so much
the more threatened Judah with destruction, that from the Assyrians
they had inherited the enmity to Egypt, on account of which Judah
obtained great importance in their eyes. According to the announcement
of the prophets generally, and of Jeremiah especially, who, at his very
vocation, had it assigned to him as his main task to announce the
calamity from the North, it was by the Chaldeans that the deadly stroke
should be inflicted upon the people implicated in the conflicts of
these hostile powers; but it was the Egyptians who inflicted upon them
the first severe wound. Josiah fell in the battle with Pharaoh Necho.
The people, conscious of guilt, were, by his death, filled with a
fearful expectation of the things that were to come. They had
forebodings that they were now standing at the boundary line where
grace and anger separate (compare remarks on Zech. xii. 11); and these
forebodings were soon converted into bitter certainty by experience.
Jehoiakim ascended the throne, after Jehoahaz or Shall um, had, after a
short reign, been carried away by the Egyptians. He stood to his father
Josiah in just the same relation as did the people to God, in reference
to the mercy which He had offered to them in Josiah. A more glaring
contrast (see its exhibition in chap. xxii.) can hardly be imagined.
Throughout, Jehoiakim shows himself to be entirely destitute not only
of love to God, but also of the fear of God; he furnishes the complete
image of a king whom God had given in anger. He [Pg 366] is a
blood-thirsty tyrant, an exasperated enemy to truth. At the beginning
of his reign, some influence of Josiah's spirit is still seen. The
priests and false prophets, rightly understanding the signs of the
time, came forward with the manifestation of their long restrained
hatred against Jeremiah, in whom they hate their own conscience. They
bring against him a charge of life and death, because he had prophesied
destruction to the city and temple; but the rulers of the people acquit
him, chap. xxvi. This influence, however, soon ceased. The king became
the centre around whom gathered all that was ungodly, which, under
Josiah, had timorously withdrawn into concealment. Soon it became a
power, a torrent overflowing the whole country; and that the more
easily, the weaker were the dams which still existed from the time of
Josiah. One of the first victims for truth who fell, was the prophet
Urijah. The king, imagining that he was able to kill truth itself in
those who proclaimed it, could not bear the thought that he was still
living, although it was in distant Egypt, and caused him to be brought
thence (see l. c). The fact that Jeremiah escaped every danger of death
during the eleven years of this king's reign, although he ever anew
threatened death to the king and destruction to the people, was a
constant miracle, a glorious fulfilment of the divine promise given to
him when he was called (i. 19): "They shall fight against thee, and
they shall not prevail against thee; for I am with thee, saith _the
Lord_, to deliver thee." The threatened divine punishment advanced,
under Jehoiakim, several steps towards its completion. In the fourth
year of his reign, Jerusalem was, for the first time, taken by the
Chaldeans (compare "_Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_," p.
45 ff.), after the power of the Egyptian Empire had been for ever
broken by the battle at Carchemish on the Euphrates. The victor this
time acted with tolerable mildness; the sin of the people was to appear
in its full light by the circumstance, that God gave them time for
repentance, and did not at once proceed to the utmost rigour, but
advanced, step by step, in His judgments. But here too it was seen that
crime, in its highest degree, becomes madness; the more nearly that
people and king approached the abyss, the greater became the speed with
which they hastened towards it. It is true that they [Pg 367] did not
remain altogether insensible when the threatenings of the Prophet began
to be fulfilled. This is seen from the day of fasting and repentance
which was appointed in remembrance of the first capture by the
Chaldeans (compare "_Dissertations on the Genuineness of Daniel_," p.
49); but fleeting emotions cannot stop the course of sin. Soon it
became worse than it had been before; and therefore the divine
judgments also reached a new station. Even political wisdom advised the
king quietly to submit to dependence on the Chaldeans, which was,
comparatively, little oppressive. It was obvious that, unsupported, he
could effect nothing against the Chaldean power; and, to the
_unprejudiced_ eye, it was as obvious that the Egyptians could not help
him; and even had it been possible, he would only have changed masters.
But, according to the counsel of God, who takes away the understanding
of the wise, these political reasons, obvious though they were, should
not exercise any influence upon him, because his obdurate heart
prevented him from listening to the religious arguments which Jeremiah
brought before him. _Melancthon_ (opp. ii., p. 407 ff.) points it out
as a remarkable circumstance that, while other prophets, _e.g._,
Samuel, Elisha, Isaiah, exhort to a vigorous opposition to the enemies,
and, in that case, promise divine assistance, yea that, to some extent,
they even took an active part in the deliverance, Jeremiah, on the
other hand, always preaches unconditional submission. The issue, which
is as different as the advice, shows that this difference has not, by
any means, its foundation in the persons, but in the state of things.
The seventy years of Chaldean servitude were irrevocably decreed upon
Judah; even the exact statement of years, which else is so uncommon in
reference to the fate of the covenant-people, shows how firm and
determined was that decree. They had altogether, and more fully than at
any other time, given themselves over to the internal power of
heathenism; according to a divine necessity, they must therefore also
be given over to the external power of the heathen, both for punishment
and reform. God himself could not change that decree, for it rested on
His nature. Hence, it would be in vain though even the greatest
intercessors, Moses and Samuel, should stand before Him, Jer. xv. 1 ff.
Intercessory prayer can be effectual, only if it be offered in [Pg 368]
the name of God. But if such were the case, how foolish was it to rebel
against the Chaldean power; to attempt to remove the effect, while they
allowed the cause to remain; to stop the brook, while the source still
continued to send forth its waters. It would have been foolish, even if
the relative power of the Jews and Chaldeans had been altogether
reversed. For when the Lord sells a people, one can chase a thousand,
and two can put ten thousand to flight (Deut. xxxii. 30). But the
shepherd of the people had become a fool, and did not enquire after the
Lord. He could not, therefore, act wisely; and the whole flock was
scattered, Jer. x. 21. Jehoiakim rebelled against the Chaldeans, and
for some years he was allowed to continue in the delusion of having
acted very wisely, for Nebuchadnezzar had more important things to mind
and to settle. But then he went up against Jerusalem, and put an end to
his reign and life, Jer. xxii. 1-12; 2 Kings xxiv. 2; "_Dissertations
on the Genuineness of Daniel_," p. 49. As yet, the long-suffering of
God, and, hence, the patience of the Chaldeans, were not at an end.
Jehoiachin or Jeconiah was raised to the throne of his father. Even the
short reign of three months gave to the youth sufficient occasion to
manifest the wickedness of his heart, and his enmity to God. Suspicions
against his fidelity arose; a Chaldean army anew entered the city, and
carried away the king, and, along with him, the great mass of the
people. This was the first great deportation. In the providence of God
it was so arranged that, among those who were carried away, there was
the very flower of the nation. The apparent suffering was to them a
blessing. They were, for their good, sent away from the place over
which the storms of God's anger were soon to discharge themselves, into
the land of the Chaldeans, and formed there the nucleus for the Kingdom
of God, in its impending new form, Jer. xxiv. Nothing now seemed to
stand in the way of the divine judgment upon the wicked mass that had
been left behind, like bad figs that no one can eat for badness,--they
whom the Lord had threatened that He would give them over to hurt and
calamity in all the kingdoms of the earth, to reproach, and a proverb,
and a taunt, and a curse, in all places whither He would drive them,
Jer. xxiv. 9. And still the Lord was waiting before He carried out this
[Pg 369] threatening, and smote the land to cursing. Mattaniah or
Zedekiah, the son of Josiah, the uncle of Jehoiachin, who was given to
them for a king, might, at least partially, have averted the evil. But
he too had to learn that the fear of the Lord is the beginning of
wisdom. From various quarters, attempts have been made to exculpate
him, on the plea that his fault was only weakness, which made him
the tool of a corrupt party; but Scripture forms a different estimate
of him, and he who looks deeper will find its judgment to be
correct,--will be able to grant to him that preference only over
Jehoiakim which _C. B. Michaelis_ assigned to him in the words:
"Jehoiakim was of an obdurate and wild disposition; Zedekiah had some
fear of God, although it was a servile, hypocritical fear, but
Jehoiakim had none at all." And even this preference, when more
narrowly examined, amounts to nothing, for it belongs to nature, and
not to grace. Whether corruption manifests itself as weakness, or as a
carnal, powerful opposition to divine truth, is accidental, and depends
upon the diversity of mental and bodily organization. The fact that
Zedekiah did not altogether put away from himself the truth and its
messengers (_Dahler_ remarks: "He respected the Prophet, without having
the power of following his advice; he even protected his life against
his persecutors, but he did not venture to secure him against their
vexation") cannot be put down to his credit; _he was, against his will,
forced to do so_; and indeed he could not resist a powerful impression
of any kind. In a man of Jehoiakim's character, the same measure of the
fear of God would induce us to mitigate our opinion; for in such a one
it could not exist without some support from within. Confiding in the
help of the neighbouring nations, especially the Egyptians; persuaded
by the false prophets and the nobles; himself seized by that spirit of
giddiness and intoxication which, with irresistible power, carried away
the people to the abyss, Zedekiah broke the holy oath which he had
sworn to the Chaldeans, and, after an obstinate resistance, Jerusalem
was taken and destroyed. As yet, the long suffering of God, and, hence,
also that of man, was not _altogether_ at an end. The conquerors left a
comparatively small portion of the inhabitants in the land. The grace
of God gave them Gedaliah, an excellent man, for their civil superior,
and Jeremiah for their ecclesiastical [Pg 370] superior. The latter
preferred to remain in the smoking ruins, rather than follow the
brilliant promises of the Chaldeans, and was willing to persevere to
the last in the discharge of his duty, although he was by this time far
advanced in life, and oppressed with deep grief But it appears as if
the people had been bent upon emptying, to the last drop, the cup of
divine wrath. Gedaliah is assassinated. Even those who did not partake
in the crime fled to Egypt, disregarding the word of the Lord through
the Prophet, who announced a curse upon them if they fled, but a
blessing if they remained.

What the Prophet had to suffer under such circumstances, one may easily
imagine even without consulting history. Even although he had remained
free from all personal vexations and attacks, it could not but be an
immeasurable grief to him to dwell in the midst of such a generation,
to see their corruption increasing more and more, to see the abyss
coming nearer and nearer, to find all his faithful warnings unheeded,
and his whole ministry in vain, at least as far as the mass of the
people were concerned. "O that they would give me in the wilderness a
lodging-place for wayfaring men"--so he speaks as early as under
Josiah, chap. ix. 1 (2)--"and I would leave my people and go from them;
for they are all adulterer, an assembly of treacherous men." But from
these personal vexations and attacks, he neither was, nor could be
exempted. Mockery, hatred, calumny, ignominy, curses, imprisonment,
bonds were his portion. To bear such a burden would have been difficult
to any man, but most of all to a man of his disposition. "The more
tender the heart, the deeper the smart." He was not a second Elijah; he
had a soft disposition, a lively sensibility; his eyes were easily
filled with tears. And he who would have liked so much to live in peace
and love with all, having entered into the service of truth, was
obliged to become a second Ishmael, his hand against every man, and
every man's hand against him. He who so ardently loved his people, must
see this love misconstrued and rejected; must see himself branded as a
traitor to the people, by those men who were themselves traitors. All
these things were to him the cause of violent struggles and conflicts,
which he candidly lays before us in various passages, especially in
chap. xii. and [Pg 371] xx., because, by the victory, the Lord, who
alone could give it, was glorified.

He was sustained by inward consolations, by wonderful deliverances, by
the remarkable fulfilment of his prophecies which he himself lived to
witness; but especially by the circumstance that the Lord caused him to
behold His future salvation with the same clearness as His judgments;
so that he could consider the latter only as transient, and, even by
the most glaring contrast between the appearance and the idea, never
lost the firm hope of the final victory of the former. This hope formed
the centre of his whole life. For a long series of years, he is
somewhat cautious in giving utterance to it; for, just as Hosea in the
kingdom of the ten tribes, so he too has to do with secure and gross
sinners, who must be terrified by the preaching of the Law, and the
message of wrath. But, even here, single sunbeams everywhere constantly
break through the dark clouds. But towards the close, when the total
destruction is already at hand, and his commission to root out and
destroy draws to an end, because now the Lord himself is to speak by
deeds, he can, to the full desire of his heart, carry out the second
part of his calling, viz., to plant and to build (compare chap. i.);
and it is now, that his mouth is overflowing, that it is seen how full
of it his heart had always been. The whole vocation of the Prophet,
_Calvin_ strikingly expresses in these words: "I say simply that
Jeremias was sent by God to announce to the people the last defeat,
and, farther, to proclaim the future redemption, but in such a manner,
that he always puts in the seventy years'exile." That, according to
him, this redemption is not destined for Israel only, but that the
Gentiles also partake in it, appears not incidentally only in the
prophecies to his own people; but it is also prominently brought out in
the prophecies against the foreign nations themselves, _e.g._, in the
prophecy against Egypt, chap. xlvi. 26; against Moab, chap. xlviii. 47;
against Ammon, xlix. 6.

In announcing the Messiah from the house of David (chap, xxii. 5, xxx.
9, xxxiii. 15), Jeremiah agrees with the former prophets. The Messianic
features peculiar to him are the following:--The announcement of a
revelation of God, which by far outshines the former one from above the
Ark of the Covenant, and by which the Ark of the Covenant, with every
[Pg 372] thing attached to it, shall become antiquated, chap. iii.
14-17; the announcement of a new covenant, distinguished from the
former by greater richness in the forgiveness of sins, and the
outpouring of the Holy Spirit: "I give my law in their inward parts,
and I will write it in their hearts," chap. xxxi. 31-34; the intimation
of the impending realization of the promise of Moses: "Ye shall be to
me a kingdom of priests," with which the abolition of the poor form of
the priesthood hitherto is connected, chap. xxxiii. 14-26.

As regards the style of Jeremiah, _Cunaeus_ (_de repub. Hebr._ i. 3, c.
7) pertinently remarks: "The whole majesty of Jeremiah lies in his
negligent language; that rough diction becomes him exceedingly well."
It is certainly very superficial in _Jerome_ to seek the cause of that
_humilitas dictionis_ of the Prophet, whom he, at the same time, calls
_in majestate sensuum profundissimum_, in his origin from the _viculus
Anathoth_. It would be unnatural if it were otherwise. The style of
Jeremiah stands on the same ground as the hairy garment and leather
girdle of Elijah. He who is sorrowful and afflicted in his heart, whose
eyes fail with tears (Lament. ii. 11), cannot adorn and decorate
himself in his dress or speech.

From chap. xi. 21, xii. 5, 6, several interpreters have inferred, that
the Prophet first came forward in his native place Anathoth, and that,
because they there said to him: "Thou shalt not prophecy in the name of
the Lord, else thou shalt die by our hand," he then went to Jerusalem.
But those passages rather refer to an experience which the Prophet made
at an incidental visit in his native place, quite similar to what our
Saviour experienced at Nazareth, according to Luke iv. 24. For in chap.
xxv. 3, Jeremiah says to "all the inhabitants of Jerusalem," that he
had spoken to _them_ since the thirteenth year of Josiah. As early as
in chap. ii. 2, at the beginning of a discourse which bears a general
introductory character, and which immediately follows, and is connected
with his vocation in chap. i., he receives the command: "Go, and cry
into the ears of Jerusalem." The opening speech itself cannot,
according to its contents, have been spoken in some corner of the
country, but in the metropolis only, in the temple more specially, the
centre of the nation and its spiritual dwelling place. It was there
that that must be delivered which was to be told to the whole people as
such.

[Pg 373]




                      THE SECTION, CHAP. III, 14-17.


The whole Section, from chap. iii. 6, to the end of chap. vi., forms
one connected discourse, separated from the preceding context by the
inscription in chap. iii. 6, and from the subsequent context, by the
inscription in chap. vii. 1. This separation, however, is more external
than internal. The contents and tone remain the same through the whole
series of chapters which open the collection of the prophecies of
Jeremiah, and that to such a degree, that we are compelled to doubt the
correctness of the proceeding of those interpreters, who would
determine the chronological order of the single portions, and fix the
exact period in the reign of Josiah to which every single portion
belongs. If such a proceeding were admissible, why should the Prophet
have expressed himself, in the inscription of the Section before us, in
terms so general as: "And the Lord said unto me in the days of Josiah
the king?" Every thing on which these interpreters endeavour to found
more accurate determinations in regard to the single Sections,
disappears upon a closer consideration. Thus, _e.g._, the twofold
reference to the seeking of help from Egypt, in chap. ii. 16 ff.,
xxxvi., xxxvii., on which _Eichhorn_ and _Dahler_ lay so much stress.
We are not entitled here to suppose a reference to a definite
historical event, which, moreover, cannot be historically pointed
out in the whole time of Josiah, but can only be supposed on unsafe
and unfounded conjectures. In both of the passages something future
is spoken of, as is evident from vers. 16 and 19. The thought is
this:--that Asshur, _i.e._, the power on the Euphrates (compare 2 Kings
xxiii. 29), which had. for a long time opened its mouth to swallow up
Judah, just as it had already swallowed up the kingdom of the ten
tribes, would not be conciliated, and that Egypt could not grant help
against him. This thought refers to historical circumstances which had
already existed, and continued to exist for some centuries, and which,
in reference to Israel, is given utterance to as early as by Hosea,
compare Vol. i. p. 164, f. Our view is this: We have here before us,
not so much a series of prophecies, each of which had literally been so
uttered at some particular [Pg 374] period in the reign of Josiah, as
rather a _resume_ of the whole prophetic ministry of Jeremiah under
Josiah; a collection of all which, being independent of particular
circumstances of that time, had, in general, the destiny to give an
inward support to the outward reforming activity of Josiah, a specimen
of the manner in which the Prophet discharged the divine commission
which he had received a year after the first reformation of Josiah.
Even the manner in which chap ii. is connected with chap. i. places
this relation to his call beyond any doubt. We have thus before us here
the same phenomenon which we have already perceived in several of the
minor prophets; comp. _e.g._, the introduction to Micah.

In the section before us, the Prophet is engaged with a two-fold
object,--first, with the proclamation of salvation for Israel, chap.
iii. 6-iv. 2; secondly, with the threatening for Judah, chap. iv. 3, to
the end of chap. vi. It is only incidentally, in chap. iii. 18, that it
is intimated that Judah also, after the threatening has been fulfilled
upon them, shall partake in the salvation. It is self-evident that
these two objects must not be considered as lying beside one another.
According to the whole context, the announcement of salvation for
Israel cannot have any other object than that of wounding Judah. This
object even comes out distinctly in ver. 6-11, and the import of the
discourse may, therefore, be thus stated: Israel does not continue to
be rejected as pharisaical Judah imagined; Judah does not continue to
be spared.--When the Prophet entered upon his ministry, ninety-four
years had already elapsed since the divine judgment had broken in upon
Israel; every hope of restoration seemed to have vanished. Judah,
instead of being thereby warned; instead of beholding, in the sin of
others, the image of its own; instead of perceiving, in the destruction
of the kingdom of its brethren, a prophecy of its own destruction, was,
on the contrary, strengthened in its obduracy. The fact that it still
existed, after Israel had, long ago, hopelessly perished, as they
imagined, appeared to them as a seal which God impressed upon their
ways. They rejoiced at Israel's calamity, because, in it, they thought
that they saw a proof of their own excellency, just as, at the time of
Christ, the blindness of the Jews was increased by the circumstance
that they still considered themselves as the sole members of [Pg 375]
the Kingdom of God, and imagined the Gentiles to be excluded from it.
The Saviour's announcement of the calling of the Gentiles stands in the
same relation as the Prophet's announcement of the restoration of
Israel.


                           * * * * * * * * * *

Ver. 14. "_Turn, O apostate children, saith the Lord, for I marry
myself unto you, and I take one of a city, and two of a family, and
bring you to Zion._"

The question here is:--To whom is the discourse here addressed,--to the
members of Israel, _i.e._, the kingdom of the ten tribes, as most of
the interpreters suppose (_Abarbanel_, _Calvin_, _Schmid_, and others),
or, as others assume, to the inhabitants of Judea? The decision has
considerable influence upon the exposition of the whole passage; but it
must unhesitatingly and unconditionally be given in favour of the first
view. There is not one word to indicate a transition; the very same
phrase, "turn, O apostate children," occurs, in ver. 22, of Israel.
Apostate Israel is, in the preceding verses (6, 8, 11,) the standing
expression, while Judah is designated as treacherous, ver. 8-11. The
measure of guilt is determined by the measure of grace. The relation of
the Lord to Judah was closer, and hence, her apostacy was so much the
more culpable. _Farther_--A detailed announcement of salvation for
Judah would here not be suitable, inasmuch as no threatening preceded;
and ver. 18 ("In those days, the house of Judah shall come by the side
of [literally, 'over'] the house of Israel," according to which the
return of Judah is, in the meantime, a subordinate point which has here
been mentioned incidentally) clearly shows that that announcement of
salvation, contained in vers. 14-17, refers to Israel. To Israel the
Prophet immediately returns in ver. 19; for, from the contrast to the
house of Judah in ver. 18, and to Judah and Jerusalem in chap. iv. 3,
it is evident that by the house of Israel in ver. 20, and by the sons
of Israel in ver. 21, Israel, in the stricter sense, is to be
understood. _Finally_--It will be seen from the exposition, that it is
only on the supposition that Israel is addressed, that the contents of
ver. 16, 17, become intelligible.--In our explanation of the words
[Hebrew: ki anki belti atkM], we follow the precedent of the Vulgate
(_quia ego vir vester_), of _Luther_ ("I will [Pg 376] marry you to
me"), of _Calvin_, _Schimd_, and others. On the other hand, others,
especially _Pococke_, _ad P.M._ p. 2, _Schultens_ on Prov. xxx. 22,
_Venema_, _Schnurrer_, _Gesenius_, _Winer_, _Bleek_, have made every
endeavour to prove that [Hebrew: bel] is used _sensu malo_ here, as
well as in chap. xxxi. 32, where it occurs in a connection altogether
similar; so that the decision must be valid for both of the passages at
the same time. This signification they seek to make out in a twofold
way. Some altogether give up the derivation from the Hebrew _usus
loquendi_, and refer solely to the Arabic, where [Hebrew: bel] means
_fastidire_. Others derive from the Hebrew signification, "to rule,"
that of a tyrannical dominion, and support their right in so doing, by
referring, with _Gesenius_, to other verbs in which the signification,
_to subdue_, _to be distinguished_, _to rule_, has been changed into
that of _looking down_, _despising_, and _contemning_. As regards the
_first_ derivation, even if the Arabic _usus loquendi_ were proved, we
could not from it make any certain inference as regards the Hebrew
_usus loquendi_. But with respect to this Arabic _usus loquendi_, it is
far from being proved and established. It is true that such would not
be the case if there indeed occurred in Arabic the expression [Arabic:
**] _fastidivit vir mulierem eamque expulit, s. repudiavit_; but it is
only by a strange _quid pro quo_ that interpreters, even _Schultens_
among them, following the example of _Kimchi_, have saddled this
expression upon the Arabic. The error lies in a hasty view of _Adul
Walid_, who, instead of it, has [Arabic: **] _any one is embarrassed in
his affair_. The signification _fastidire_, _rejicere_, is, in general,
quite foreign to the Arabic. The verb [Arabic: **] denotes only: _mente
turbatus_, _attonitus fuit_, _i.e._, _to be possessed_, _deprived of
the use of one's strength_, _to be embarrassed_, _not to know how to
help one's self_: compare the _Camus_ in _Schultens_ and _Freytag_. As
soon as the plain connection of this signification with the ordinary
one is perceived, it is seen at once, that it is here out of the
question. As regards the second derivation, we must bring this
objection against it, that the fundamental signification of _ruling_,
from which that of _ruling tyrannically_ is said to have arisen, is
entirely foreign to the Hebrew. More clearly than by modern
Lexicographers it was seen by _Cocceius_, that the fundamental, yea the
only signification of [Hebrew: bel], is that of _possessing_, [Pg 377]
_occupying_. It may, indeed, be used also of rulers, as, _e.g._ Isa.
xxvi. 13, and 1 Chron. iv. 22; but not in so far as they rule, but in
so far as they possess. On the former passage: "Jehovah our God,
[Hebrew: belvnv advniM zvltiM], Lords beside thee have dominion over
us," _Schultens_, it is true, remarks: "Every one here easily
recognizes a severe and tyrannical dominion;" but it is rather the
circumstance that the land of the Lord has at all foreign possessors,
which is the real sting of the grief of those lamenting, and which so
much occupies them, that they scarcely think of the way and manner of
the possessing.--Passages such as Is. liv. 1,[1] lxii. 4, compare Job
i. 8, where a relation is spoken of, founded on most cordial love, show
that the signification "_to marry_," does not by any means proceed from
that of ruling, and is not to be explained from the absolute, slavish
dependence of the wife in the East, but rather from the signification
"to possess." And this is farther proved by passages such as Deut. xxi.
10-13, xxvi. 1, where the _copula carnalis_ is pointed out as that by
which the [Hebrew: bel] is completed. And, finally, it is seen from the
Arabic, where the wife is also called, [Hebrew: belh], [Arabic: **],
just as the husband is called [Hebrew: bel], [Arabic: **].--It is
farther obvious that, in the frequent compositions of [Hebrew: bel]
with other nouns, in order, by way of paraphrasis, to form adjectives,
the signification "lord" is far less suitable than that of "possessor,"
_e.g._, [Hebrew: bel Hlmvt], _the dreamer_, [Hebrew: bel aP], _the
angry one_, [Hebrew: bel npw], _the covetous one_, [Hebrew: bel mzmzt],
_the deceitful one_, [Hebrew: beli eir] _oppidani_, [Hebrew: beli
brit], _the members of the covenant_, etc. We arrive at the same
conclusion, if we look to the dialects. Here, too, the signification
"to possess" appears as the proper and original signification. In the
Ethiopic, the verb signifies _multum possedit, dives fuit._ In Arabic,
the significations are more varied; but they may all be traced back to
one root. Thus, _e.g._ [Arabic: **], [Hebrew: bel], according to the
_Camus_, "a high and elevated land which requires only one annual rain;
farther, a palm-tree, or any other tree or plant which is not watered,
or which the sky alone irrigates;" _i.e._, a land, a tree, a plant
which themselves _possess_, which do not require to _borrow_ from
others. This reason of the appellation clearly appears in _Dsheuhari_
(compare [Pg 378] _Schultens_ l. c.): "It is used of the palm-tree,
which, by its roots, provides for itself drink and sap, so that there
is no need for watering it." In favour of the signification "to rule"
in this verb, the following gloss from the _Camus_ only can be quoted:
"Both (the 1st and 10th conjugations) when construed with [Hebrew:
elih] _super illum_, denote: he has taken possession of a thing, and
behaved himself proudly towards it." But the latter clause must be
struck out; for it has flowed only from the false reading [Arabic: **]
in _Schultens_, for which (compare _Freytag_) [Arabic: **] _noluit_
must be read, [Hebrew: bel] with [Hebrew: el] accordingly signifies "to
be the possessor of a thing, and, as such, not to be willing to give it
up to another." And thus every ground has been taken from those who,
from the Hebrew _usus loquendi_, would interpret [Hebrew: bel] in a bad
sense,--The same result, however, which we have reached upon
philological grounds, we shall obtain also, when we look to the
context. From it, they are most easily refuted, who, like _Schultens_,
understand the whole verse as a threatening. That which precedes, as
well as that which follows, breathes nothing but pure love to poor
Israel. She is not terrified by threatenings, like Judah who has not
yet drunk of the cup of God's wrath, but allured by the call: "Come
unto me all ye that are weary and heavy laden, _for_ I will give you
rest." But they also labour under great difficulties who, after the
example of _Kimchi_ ("_ego fastidivi vos, eo scil. quod praeteriit
tempore, ac jam colligam vos_"), refer the [Hebrew: ki] not so much to
[Hebrew: belti], as rather to [Hebrew: lqhti]: "For I have, it is true,
rejected you formerly, but now I take," &c. This is the only shape in
which this interpretation can still appear; for it is altogether
arbitrary to explain [Hebrew: ki] by "although," an interpretation
still found in _De Wette_. If it had been the intention of the Prophet
to express this sense, nothing surely was less admissible, than to omit
just those words, upon which everything depended--the words _formerly_
and _now_. [Hebrew: lqHti] and [Hebrew: belti] evidently stand here in
the same relation; both together form the ground for the return to the
Lord. To these reasons we may still add the circumstance that,
according to our explanation, we obtain the beautiful parallelism with
ver. 12: "Return thou, apostate Israel, saith the Lord; I will not
cause mine anger to fall upon you; _for_ I am merciful; I do not keep
anger for ever,"--a circumstance which has already been [Pg 379]
pointed out by _Calvin_. Israel's haughtiness is broken; but
despondency now keeps them from returning to the Lord. He, therefore,
ever anew repeats His invitation, ever anew founds it upon the fact,
that He delights in showing mercy and love to those who have forsaken
Him. The rejection of Israel had, in ver. 8, been represented under the
image of divorce: "Because apostate Israel had committed adultery, I
had put her away, and given her the bill of divorce." What, therefore,
is more natural, than that her being received again, which was offered
to her out of pure mercy, should appear under the image of a new
marriage; and that so much the more, that the apostacy had, even in the
preceding verse, been represented as adultery and whoredom? ("_Thou
hast scattered thy ways_, _i.e._, thou hast been running about
to various places after the manner of an impudent whore seeking
lovers"--_Schmid_; compare ver. 6.) Farther to be compared is ver. 22:
"Return ye apostate children, (for) I will heal your apostacy. Behold
we come unto thee, _for_ thou art the Lord our God." The objection that
[Hebrew: bel], in the signification "to take in marriage" is construed
with the Accusative only, is of no weight. In a manner altogether
similar, [Hebrew: zkr], which else is connected with the simple
Accusative, is, in ver. 16, followed by the Preposition [Hebrew: b].
[Hebrew: bel] with [Hebrew: b] altogether corresponds to our "to join
onesself in marriage;" and the construction has perhaps a certain
emphasis, and indicates the close and indissoluble connection. Of still
less weight is another objection, viz., that, in that case, the _Suffix
Plur._ is inadmissible. It is just the Israelites who are the wife; and
this is so much the more evident that, in the preceding verses, and
even still in ver. 13, they had been treated as such. Hence nothing
remains but to determine the sense of our passage, as was done by
_Calvin_: "Because despair might take hold of them, in such a manner
that they might be afraid of approaching Him.... He saith that He would
marry himself to them, and that He had not yet forgotten that union
which He once had bestowed upon them." This is the only correct view;
and by thus determining the sense, we at the same time obtain the sure
foundation for the exposition of chap. xxxi. 32; just as, _vice versa_,
the sense which will result from an independent consideration of that
passage, [Pg 380] will serve to confirm that which was here
established.[2] In the right determination of the sense of the
subsequent words, too, _Calvin_ distinguishes himself advantageously
from the earlier, and most of the later interpreters: "God shows that
there was no reason why some should wait for others; and farther,
although the very body of the people might be utterly corrupted in
their sins, yet, if even a few were to return. He would show himself
merciful to them. The covenant had been entered into with the _whole_
people. The single individual might, therefore, have been disposed to
imagine that his repentance was in vain. But in opposition to such
fears, the Prophet says: 'Although only one of a town should come to
me, he shall find an open door; although only two of one tribe come to
me, I will admit even them.'" After him _Loscanus_ too (in his
Dissertation on this passage, Frankf. 1720) has thus correctly stated
the sense: "The small number shall not prevent God from carrying out
His counsel." Thus it is seen--and this is alone suitable in this
context--that the apparent limitation of the promise is, in truth, an
extension of it. How great must God's love and mercy be to Israel, in
how wide an extent must the declaration be true: [Greek: ametameleta ta
charismata kai he klesis tou Theo], Rom. xi. 29, if even a single
righteous Lot is by God delivered from the Sodom of Israel; if Joshua
and Caleb, untouched by the pefunishment of the sins of the thousands,
reach the Holy Land; if every penitent heart at once finds a gracious
God! Thus it appears that this passage is not by any means in
contradiction to other passages by which a complete restoration of
Israel is promised. On the contrary, the [Greek: epitunchanein] of the
[Greek: ekloge] (Rom. xi. 7) announced here, is a pledge and guarantee
for the more comprehensive and general mercy.--Expositors are at
variance as to the historical reference of the prophecy. Some, _e.g._
_Theodoret_, _Grotius_, think exclusively of the return from the
Babylonish captivity. Others (after the example of _Jerome_ and the
Jewish interpreters) think of the Messianic time. It need [Pg 381]
scarcely be remarked, that here, as in so many other passages, this
alternative is out of place. The prophecy has just the very same extent
as the matter itself, and, hence, refers to all eternity. It was a
commencement, that, at the time of Cyrus, many from among the ten
tribes, induced by true love to the God of Israel, joined themselves to
the returning Judeans, and were hence again engrafted by God into the
olive-tree. It was a continuation of the fulfilment that, in later
times, especially those of the Maccabees, this took place more and more
frequently. It was a preparation and prelude of the complete
fulfilment, although not the complete fulfilment itself, that, at the
time of Christ, the blessings of God were poured upon the whole [Greek:
dodekaphulon], Acts xxvi. 7. The words: "I bring you to Zion," in the
verse under consideration, and: "They shall come out of the land of the
North to the land that I have given for an inheritance unto their
fathers," in ver. 18, do not at all oblige us to limit ourselves to
those feeble beginnings; the idea appears here only in that form, in
which it must be realised, in so far as its realisation belonged to the
time of the Old Testament. Zion and the Holy Land were, at that time,
the seat of the Kingdom of God; so that the return to the latter was
inseparable from the return to the former. Those from among Israel who
were converted to the true God, either returned altogether to Judea,
or, at least, there offered up their sacrifices. But Zion and the Holy
Land likewise come into consideration, as the seat of the Kingdom of
God _only_; and, for that very reason, the course of the fulfilment
goes on incessantly, even in those times when even the North has become
Zion and Holy Land.--The circumstance that two are assigned to a
family, while only one is assigned to a town, shows that we must here
think of a larger family which occupied several towns; and the
circumstance that the town is put together with the family, shows that
it is cities of the land of Israel which are here spoken of, and not
those which the exiled ones inhabited.

Ver. 15. "_And I give you shepherds according to mine heart, and they
feed you with knowledge and understanding._"

The question is:--Who are here to be understood by the shepherds?
_Calvin_ thinks that it is especially the prophets and priests,
inasmuch as it was just the bad condition of these [Pg 382] which had
been the principal cause of the ruin of the people; and that it is the
greatest blessing for the Church, when God raises up true and sincere
teachers. Similar is the opinion of _Vitringa_ (_obs._ lib. vi., p.
417), who, in a lower sense, refers it to Ezra and the learned men of
that time, and, in a higher sense, to Christ. Among the Fathers of the
Church, _Jerome_ remarked: "These are the apostolical men who did not
feed the multitude of the believers with Jewish ceremonies, but with
knowledge and doctrine." Others refer it to leaders of every kind; thus
_Venema_: _Pastores sunt rectores, ductores._ Others, finally, limit
themselves to rulers; thus _Kimchi_ (_gubernatores Israelis cum rege
Messia_), _Grotius_, and _Clericus_. The latter interpretation is, for
the following reasons, to be unconditionally preferred. 1. The image of
the shepherd and of feeding occurs sometimes, indeed, in a wider sense,
but ordinarily of the ruler specially. Thus, in the fundamental
passage, 2 Sam. v. 2, it occurs of David, compare Micah v. 3. Thus also
in Jeremiah ii. 8: "The _priests_ said not. Where is the Lord, and they
that handle the law knew me not, and the shepherds transgressed against
me, and the prophets prophesied in the name of Baal;" comp. ver. 26:
"They, their kings, their princes, and their priests, and their
prophets." 2. The word [Hebrew: klbi] contains an evident allusion to 1
Sam. xiii. 14, where it is said of David: "The Lord hath sought him, a
man after His own heart, and the Lord hath appointed him to be a prince
over His people." 3. All doubt is removed by the parallel passage,
chap. xxiii. 4: "And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them,
and they fear no more, nor are dismayed." That, by the shepherds, in
this verse, only the rulers can be understood, is evident from the
contrast to the bad rulers of the present, who were spoken of in chap.
xxii., no less than from the connection with ver. 5, where that which,
in ver. 4, was expressed in general, is circumscribed within narrow
limits, and the concentration of the fulfilment of the preceding
promise is placed in the Messiah: "Behold, days come, saith the Lord,
and I raise unto David a righteous _Branch_, and He reigneth as a king
and acteth wisely, and setteth up judgment and justice in the land."
This parallel passage is, in so far also, of importance, as it shews
that the prophecy under consideration likewise had its final reference
to the [Pg 383] Messiah. The kingdom of the ten tribes was punished by
bad kings for its apostacy from the Lord, and from His visible
representative. In the whole long series of Israelitish kings, we do
not find any one like Jehoshaphat, or Hezekiah, or Josiah. And that is
very natural, for the foundation of the Israelitish throne was
rebellion. But, with the cessation of sin, punishment too shall cease.
Israel again turns to that family which is the medium and channel
through which all the divine mercies flow upon the Church of the Lord;
and so they receive again a share in them, and particularly in their
richest fulness in the exalted scion of David, the Messiah. The passage
under consideration is thus completely parallel to Hosea iii. 5: "And
they seek Jehovah their God, and David their king;" and that which we
remarked on that passage is here more particularly applicable; compare
also Ezek. xxxiv. 23: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and He
feedeth them, my servant David, he shall feed them, and he shall be
their shepherd." The antithesis to the words: "According to mine
heart," is formed by the words in Hos. viii. 4: "They have set up kings
not by me, princes whom I knew not,"--words which refer to the past
history of Israel. Formerly, the rebellious chose for themselves kings
according to the desires of their own hearts. Now, they choose Him whom
God hath chosen, and who, according to the same necessity, must be an
instrument of blessing, as the former were of cursing.--[Hebrew: deh]
and [Hebrew: hwkil] stand adverbially. [Hebrew: hwkil] "to act wisely"
is, in appearance only, intransitive in _Hiphil_. The foundation of
wisdom and knowledge is the living communion with the Lord, being
according to His heart, walking after Him. The foolish counsels of the
former rulers of Israel, by which they brought ruin upon their people,
were a consequence of their apostacy from the Lord. The two fundamental
passages are, Deut. iv. 6: "And ye shall keep and do (the law); for
this is your wisdom and understanding;" xxix. 8 (9): "Ye shall keep the
words of this covenant and do them, that ye may act wisely." Besides
the passage under consideration, the passages Josh. i. 7; 1 Sam. xviii.
14, 15; 1 Kings ii. 3; Is. lii. 13; Jer. x. 21, xxiii. 5, are founded
upon these two passages. If all these passages are compared with one
another, and with the fundamental passages, one cannot but wonder at
the arbitrariness [Pg 384] of interpreters and lexicographers who,
severing several of these passages from the others, have forced upon
the verb [Hebrew: hwkil] the signification "to prosper,"--a
signification altogether fanciful _God's_ servants act wisely, because
they look up to God; and he who acts wisely finds prosperity for
himself and his people. Hence, it is a proof of the greatest mercy of
God towards His people, when He gives them His _servants_ for kings.

Ver. 16. "_And it cometh to pass, when ye be multiplied and fruitful in
the land, in those days, saith the Lord, they shall say no more: The
Ark of the Covenant of the Lord! And it will not come into the heart,
neither shall they remember it, nor miss it, nor shall it be made
again._"

First, we shall explain some particulars. The words: "When ye be," &c.
refer to Gen. i. 28, As it is God's general providence which brings
about the fruitfulness of all creatures, so it is His special
providence which brings about the increase of His Church whose ranks
have been thinned by His judgments; and it is thus that His promise to
the patriarchs is carried on towards its fulfilment; compare remarks on
Hos, ii. 1. God's future activity in this respect, has an analogy in
His former activity in Egypt, Exod. i. 12. The words: "The Ark of the
Covenant" must be viewed as an exclamation, in which an ellipsis, in
consequence of the emotion, must be supposed, _q.d._ it is the aim of
all our desires, the object of all our longings. The mere mention of
the object with which the whole heart is filled, is sufficient for the
lively emotion. _Venema's_ exposition; _Arca f[oe]deris Jehovae_ sc.
_est_, and that of _De Wette_: "They shall no more speak of the Ark of
the Covenant of Jehovah," are both feeble and un philological. How were
it possible that [Hebrew: amr] with the Accusative should mean "to
speak of something?"--[Hebrew: elh el-lb] is, in a similar context,
just as it is here, connected with [Hebrew: zkr] in Is. lxv. 17: "For
behold I create a new heaven and a new earth, and the former shall not
be remembered nor come into the heart," comp. also Jer. li. 50, vii.
31; 1 Cor. ii. 9. [Hebrew: zkr] with [Hebrew: b] does not simply stand
instead of the usual connection with the Accusative; it signifies a
remembering connected with affection, a recollection joined with ardent
longings. [Hebrew: pqd] is, by many interpreters, understood in the
sense of "to visit," but the signification "to miss" (Is. xxxiv. 16; 1
Sam. xx. 6-18, xxv. 15; 1 Kings [Pg 385] xx. 39) is recommended by the
connection with the following clause: "Nor shall it be made again."
This supposes that there shall come a time when the Ark of the Covenant
shall no more exist, the time of the destruction of the temple, which
was so frequently and emphatically announced by the prophets.[3] God,
however, will grant so rich a compensation for that which is lost, that
men will neither long for it, nor, urged on by this longing, make any
attempt at again procuring it for themselves by their own efforts. The
main question now arises:--In what respect does the Ark of the Covenant
here come into consideration? The answer is suggested by ver. 17. The
Ark of the Covenant is no more remembered, because Jerusalem has now,
in a perfect sense, become the throne of God. The Ark of the Covenant
comes into consideration, therefore, as the throne of God, in an
imperfect sense. It can easily be proved that it was so, although there
have been disputes as to the manner in which it was so. The current
view was this, that God, as the Covenant God, had _constantly_
manifested himself above the Cherubim on the Ark of the Covenant, in a
visible symbol, in a cloud. The first important opposition to this view
proceeded from _Vitringa_ who, in the _Obs. sac._ t. i. p. 169,
advances, among other arguments, the following: "It is not by any means
necessary to maintain that, in the holy of holies, in the tabernacle or
the temple of Solomon, there was constantly a cloud over the Ark; but
it may be sufficient to say, that the Ark was the symbol of the divine
habitation, and it was for this reason said that God was present in the
place between the Cherubim, because from thence proceeded the
revelation of His will, and He thus proved to the Jews that He was
present." But this view of _Vitringa_, that it was [Pg 386] merely in
an invisible manner that God was present over the Ark of the Covenant,
met with strong opposition; and a note to the second edition shows,
that he himself afterwards entertained doubts regarding it. By
_Thalemann_, a pupil of _Ernesti_, it was afterwards advanced far more
decidedly, and evidently with the intention of carrying it through,
whether it was true or not, in the _Dissertatio de nube super arcam
foederis_ (Leipzig, 1756). He, too, declared, however, that he did not
deny the matter, but only disputed the sign. He found a learned
opponent in _John Eberhard Rau_, Professor at Herborn (_Ravius_, _de
nube super arcam foederis_, Utrecht, 1760; it is a whole book, in which
_Thalemann's_ Treatise is reprinted). The matter is, indeed, very
simple; both parties are right and wrong, and the truth lies between
the two. From the principal passage, in Lev. xvi. 2, it is evident
that, at the annual entry of the High Priest into the holy of holies,
the invisible presence of God embodied itself in a cloud, as formerly
it also did, on extraordinary occasions, during the journey through the
wilderness, and at the dedication of the tabernacle and temple. In that
passage, Aaron is exhorted not to enter the holy of holies at all
times, for that would prove a want of reverence, but only once a year,
"for in the cloud I shall appear over the lid of expiation," (this is
the right explanation of [Hebrew: kprt] compare _Genuineness of the
Pentateuch_, p. 525 f.) The place where God manifests himself in so
visible a manner when the High Priest enters into it, cannot fail to be
a most holy place to him. It is true that _Vitringa_ (S. 171), and
still more _Thalemann_ (S. 39 in _Rau_), have endeavoured to remove
this objection by their interpretation; but with so plain a violation
of all the laws of interpretation, that it is scarcely worth while to
enter farther upon this exposition, (compare the refutation in _Rau_,
S. 40 ff.), although _J. D. Michaelis_, _Vater_, _Rosenmueller_, and
_Baehr_, (_Symbol. des Mos. Cultus_, i. S. 395), have approved of it.[4]
On the other hand, [Pg 387] there is nothing to favour the supposition
of an ordinary and constant presence of the cloud in the holy of
holies. With such a view, questions at once arise, such as: Whether it
came also to the Philistines? All that _Rau_ advances in favour of it,
merely proves the invisible presence of God, which surely cannot be
considered and called a merely imaginary thing, as is done by him, p.
35. For what, in that case, would be the Lord's presence in the hearts
of believers, and in the Lord's supper? It is true that Ezekiel, in
chap. xi. 22, beholds the glory of the Lord over the cherubim as being
lifted up, and forsaking the temple before its destruction; but how can
we draw any reference, as to the actual state of things, from visions
which, according to their nature, surround with a body all that is
invisible? Still, as we already remarked, this whole controversy has
reference to the _manner_ only, and not to the _fact_ of God's presence
over the Ark of the Covenant; and the Ark of the Covenant stands here
in a wider sense, and comprehends the cherubim, and "the glory of the
Lord dwelling over them." From a vast number of passages, it can be
proved that this glory of the Lord was constantly and really present
over the Ark of the Covenant, although it was in extraordinary cases
only that it manifested itself in an outward, visible form; compare,
besides Lev. xvi. 2, Lev. ix. 24, where, after Aaron's consecration to
the priesthood, the glory of the Lord appeared to the whole people in
confirmation of his office. To these passages belong all those in which
God is designated as dwelling over the cherubim, such as 1 Chron. xiii.
6; Ps. lxxx. 2; 1 Sam. iv. 4. To it refers the designation of the ark
of the covenant, in a narrower sense, as the footstool of God; comp. 1
Chron. xxviii. 2, where David says: "I had in mine heart to build an
house of rest for the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, and for the
footstool of our God;" Ps. xcix. 5, cxxxii. 7; Lam. ii. 1. From this
circumstance the fact is explained, that the prayer in distress, as
well as the thanks for deliverance, were offered up before, or towards
[Pg 388] the Ark of the Covenant. After the defeat before Ai (Josh.
vii. 5 ff.), Joshua "rent his clothes, and fell to the earth upon his
face, before the Ark of the Covenant of the Lord, until the eventide,
he and the elders of Israel, and put dust upon their heads, and Joshua
said: Alas, O Lord God, wherefore hast thou at all brought this people
over Jordan?" After the Lord had appeared to Solomon at Gibeah, and had
given him the promise, he went before the Ark of the Covenant of the
Lord, and offered burnt-offerings, and thank-offerings, 1 Kings iii.
15. In 2 Sam. xv. 32, we are told that David went up the Mount of
Olives very sorrowfully, and when he was come to the place, _where
people were accustomed to worship God_, Hushai met him. According to
that passage, it was the custom of the people, when on the top of the
Mount of Olives, they gained, for the first or last time, a view of the
sanctuary, to prostrate themselves before the God of Israel who dwelt
there. To the Ark of the Covenant, all those passages refer in which it
is said that God dwelleth in the midst of Israel; that He dwelleth in
the temple; that He dwelleth at Zion or Jerusalem, compare _e.g._, the
promise in Exodus xxix. 45: "I dwell in the midst of the children of
Israel," and farther, Ps. ix. 12, cxxxii. 13, 14; 1 Kings vi. 12, 13,
where God promises to Solomon that if he should only walk in His
commandments, and execute His judgments, then would He dwell among the
children of Israel; and afterwards fulfils this promise by solemnly
entering into his temple. Indissolubly connected with this, was the
deep reverence in which the Ark of the Covenant was held in Israel. It
was considered as the most precious jewel of the people, as the centre
of their whole existence. Being the place where the glory of God dwelt
(Ps. xxvi. 8), where He manifested himself in His most glorious
revelation, it was called _the glory of Israel_, compare 1 Sam. iv. 21,
22; Ps. lxxviii. 61. The High Priest Eli patiently and quietly heard
all the other melancholy tidings--the defeat of Israel, and the death
of his sons. But when he who had escaped added: "And the Ark of God is
taken," he fell from off the seat backward by the side of the gate; and
his neck brake, and he died. When his daughter-in-law heard the tidings
that the Ark of the Covenant was taken, she bowed herself and
travailed; for her pains came upon her. And about the time of [Pg 389]
her death, the women that stood by her said unto her: Fear not, for
thou hast borne a son. But she answered not, neither did she take it to
heart, and she named the child Ichabod, and said. The glory is departed
from Israel, because the Ark of the Covenant was taken, and said again:
"The glory is departed from Israel, for the Ark of God is taken." But
in what manner may this dwelling of God over the Ark of the Covenant be
conceived of? Should the Most High God, whom all the heavens, and the
heaven of heavens cannot contain (1 Kings viii. 27), whose throne is
the heaven, and whose footstool is the earth (Is. lxvi. 1), dwell in a
temple made by the hands of men? (Acts vii. 48, ff.) Evidently not in
the manner in which men dwell in a place, who are _in_ it only, not
_out_ of it. Nor in such a manner as the carnally minded suppose, who,
to the warnings of the prophets, opposed their word: "Is not the Lord
among us? none evil can come upon us" (Micah iii. 11), or: "Here is the
temple of the Lord, here is the temple of the Lord, here is the temple
of the Lord" (Jer. vii. 4), imagining that God could not forsake the
place which he had chosen, could not take away the free gift of His
grace. The matter rather stands thus: That which constitutes the
substance and centre of the whole relation of Israel to God, is, that
the God of the heavens and the earth became the God of Israel; that the
Creator of heaven and earth became the Covenant-God, that His general
providence in blessing and punishing became a special one. In order to
make the relation familiar to the people, and thus to make it the
object of their love and fear, God gave them a _praesens numen_ in His
sanctuary, as a prefiguration, and, at the same time, a prelude of the
condescension with which He whom the whole universe cannot contain,
rested in the womb of Mary. And in so doing, He gave them not a
symbolical representation merely, but an embodiment of the idea, so
that they who wished to seek Him as the God of Israel, could find Him
in the temple, and over the Ark of the Covenant only. The circumstance
that it was just there that He took His seat, shows the difference
between this truly _praesens numen_, and that merely imaginery one of
the Gentiles. There was in this no partial favour for Israel, nothing
from which careless sinners could derive any comfort, God's dwelling
among Israel rested on [Pg 390] His holy Law. According as the Covenant
is kept or not, and the Law is observed or not, it manifests itself by
increased blessing, or by severer punishment. If the Covenant be
entirely broken, the consequence is that God leaves His dwelling, and
it is only the curse which remains, and which is greater than the curse
inflicted upon those among whom He never dwelt, and which, by its
greatness, indicates the greatness of the former grace.--Now, if this
be the case with the Ark of the Covenant; if it be the substance and
centre of the whole former dispensation, what, and how much would not
fall along with it, if it fell; and how infinitely great must the
compensation be which was to be granted for it, if, in consequence of
it, no desire and longing after it was to rise at all, if it was to be
regarded as belonging to the [Greek: ptocha stoicheia], and was to be
forgotten as a mere image and shadow! The fact that the Ark of the
Covenant was made before any thing else, sufficiently shows that every
thing sacred under the Old Testament dispensation depended upon it.
_Witsius Misc. t._ i. p. 439, very pertinently remarks: "The Ark of the
Covenant being, as it were, the heart of the whole Israelitish
religion, was made first of all." Without Ark of the Covenant--no
temple; for it became a sanctuary by the Ark of the Covenant only; for
holy, so Solomon says in 2 Chron. viii. 11, is the place whereunto the
Ark of the Covenant hath come. Without Ark of the Covenant, no
priesthood; for what is the use of servants when there is no Lord
present? Without temple and priesthood, no sacrifice. We have thus
before us the announcement of the entire destruction of the previous
form of the Kingdom of God, but such a destruction of the form as
brings about, at the same time, the highest completion of the
substance,--a perishing like that of the seed-corn, which dies only, in
order to bring forth much fruit; like that of the body, which is sown
in corruption, in order to be raised in incorruption. _Dahler_ remarks:
"Because a more sublime religion, a more glorious state of things will
take the place of the Mosaic dispensation, there will be no cause for
regretting the loss of the symbol of the preceding dispensation, and
people will no more remember it."--It is quite natural that the
prophecy should give great offence, and prove a stumbling-block to
Jewish interpreters. Its subject, its high dignity, just [Pg 391]
consists in the announcement that, at some future period, the shadow
should give way to the substance; but it is just the confounding of the
shadow with the substance, the rigid adherence to the former, which
characterises Judaism, which considers even the Messiah as a minister
of the old dispensation only, and views the great changes to be
effected by Him, mainly as external ones. The embarrassment arising
from this, is very clearly expressed in the following words of
_Abarbanel_: "This promise is, then, bad, and uproots the whole Law.
How is it then that Scripture mentions it as good?" Rabbi _Arama_, in
his commentary on the Pentateuch, fol. 101, says, in reference to this
prophecy, [Hebrew: nbvkv kl hmprwiM] "all interpreters have been
perplexed by it." The interpretations by means of which they endeavour
to rid themselves of this embarrassment (see the collection of them in
_Frischmuth's_ dissertation on this passage, Jena; reprinted in the
_Thes. Ant._) are only calculated plainly to manifest it. _Kimchi_
gives this explanation: "Although ye shall increase and be multiplied
on the earth, yet the nations shall not envy you, nor wage war against
you; and it shall no more be necessary for you to go to war with the
Ark of the Covenant, as was usual in former times, when they took the
Ark of the Covenant out to war. In that time, there will be no
necessity for so doing, as they shall not have any war." The weak
points of this explanation are at once obvious. That which, in the
verse under consideration, is, in a general way, said of the Ark of the
Covenant, is, by it, referred to an altogether special use of it, a
regard to which is excluded by the evident antithesis in ver. 17.
_Abarbanel_ rejects this explanation. He says: "For there is, in the
text, no mention at all of war; and therefore I cannot approve of this
exposition, although _Jonathan_, too, inclines towards it." He himself
brings out this sense: The Ark of the Covenant would then, indeed,
still continue to exist, and be the seat of the Lord; but no more the
exclusive one, no longer the sole sanctuary. "The whole of Jerusalem
shall, as regards holiness and glory, equal the Ark of the Covenant.
For there shall cease with them every evil thing, and every evil
imagination; and there shall be such holiness in the land, that in the
same manner as formerly the Ark was the holiest of all things, so at
that time, Jerusalem shall be [Pg 392] the throne of the Lord." But, by
this explanation, justice is not done to the text. For it is an entire
doing away with the Ark of the Covenant which is spoken of in it, not a
mere diminution of its dignity, produced by the circumstance, that that
which formerly was low shall be exalted. This is particularly evident
from the words: "They will not miss it, neither shall it be made
again." To this argument we may still add that, by this exposition, not
even the object is gained for the sake of which it was advanced. The
nature and substance of the Ark of the Covenant is destroyed, as soon
as it is put on a level with anything else. It is then no more _the_
throne of the Lord; and for this reason, the previous form can no
longer continue to exist, and, along with it, the temple and priesthood
too must fall. If every place in Jerusalem, if every inhabitant of it,
be equally holy, how then can institutions still continue, which are
based on the difference between holy and unholy?--Here a question still
arises. There was no Ark of the Covenant in the second temple. In what
relation to the prophecy under consideration stands this absence of the
Ark of the Covenant, the restoration of which the Jews expect at the
end of the days? There cannot be any doubt that it was really wanting.
Every proof of its existence is wanting. _Josephus_, in enumerating the
catalogue of the _spolia Judaica_, borne before in the triumph, does
not mention it. He says expressly (de Bell. Jud. v. 5, Sec. 5), that the
holy of holies had been altogether empty. Some of the Jewish writers
assert that it had been carried away to Babylon; while most of them,
following the account given in 2 Maccabees, tell us that Josiah or
Jeremiah had concealed it; compare the Treatise by _Calmet_, Th. 6, S.
224-258, _Mosh._ In asking _why_ such was the case, other analogous
phenomena, the absence of the _Urim and Thummim_, the cessation of
prophetism soon after the return from the captivity, must not be lost
sight of. Every thing was intended to impress upon the people the
conviction that their condition was provisional only. It was necessary
that the Theocracy should sink beneath its former glory, in order that
the future glory, which was far to outshine it, should so much the more
be longed for. After having thus determined _why_ it was that the Ark
of the Covenant was wanting, at the second temple, it is easy to [Pg
393] determine the relation of this absence to the prophecy under
consideration. It was the beginning of its fulfilment. In the Kingdom
of God, nothing perishes, without something new arising out of this
decay. The extinction of the old was the guarantee, that something new
was approaching. On the other hand, the absence of the Ark of the
Covenant was, it is true, at the same time, a matter-of-fact prophecy
of a sad character. To those who clung to the form, without having in a
living manner laid hold of the substance, and who, therefore, were not
able to partake in the more glorious display of the substance,--to
these it announced that the time was approaching when the form, to
which they had attached themselves with their whole existence, was
to be broken. Since already one of the great privileges of the
covenant-people, the [Greek: doxa] (Rom. ix. 4), had disappeared,
surely all that might and would soon share the same fate, which existed
only for the sake of it, and in it only had its significance. In this
respect, the non-restoration of the Ark of the Covenant showed that the
Chaldean destruction and that by the Romans were connected as
commencement and completion; while, in the other aspect, it declared
that, with the return from the captivity, the realization of God's
great plan of salvation was being prepared. Inasmuch as the most
complete _fuga vacui_ is peculiar to the Covenant-God, the emptiness in
that place where formerly the glory of God dwelt, proclaimed aloud the
future fulness.--_Finally_, we have still to determine the special
reference of our verse to Israel, _i.e._, the former kingdom of the ten
tribes. This reference is, by most interpreters, entirely lost sight
of, and is very superficially and erroneously determined by those who,
like _Calvin_, pay attention to it. In the preceding verse, it had been
promised to Israel, that those blessings should again be bestowed upon
them, which they had forfeited by their rebellion against the Davidic
house, and that they should be restored to them with abundant interest.
For David's house is to attain to its completion in its righteous
Sprout. This Shepherd, who is, in the fullest sense, what His ancestor
had only imperfectly been--a man according to the heart of God--shall
feed them with knowledge and understanding. _Here_, a compensation is
promised for the second, infinitely greater loss, which [Pg 394] had,
at all times, been acknowledged as such by the faithful in the kingdom
of the ten tribes. The revelation of the Lord over the Ark of the
Covenant was the magnet which constantly drew them to Jerusalem. Many
sacrificed all their earthly possessions, and took up their abode in
Judea. Others went on a pilgrimage from their natural to their
spiritual home, to the "throne of the glory exalted from the
beginning," Jer. xvii. 12. In vain was every thing which the kings of
Israel did in order to stifle their indestructible longing. Every new
event by which "the glory of Israel" manifested itself as such, kindled
their ardour anew. But here also the great blessing and privilege,
which the believers missed with sorrow, the unbelievers without it, is
to the returning ones given back, not in its previous form, but in a
glorious completion. The whole people have now received eyes to
recognise the value of the matter in its previous form; and yet this
previous form is now looked upon by them as nothing, because the new,
infinitely more glorious form of the same matter occupied their
attention.

Ver. 17. "_At that time they shall call Jerusalem the throne of the
Lord; and all the nations shall be gathered into it, because the name
of the Lord is at Jerusalem; neither shall they walk any more after the
wickedness of their evil heart._"

Many interpreters, proceeding upon the supposition that the emphasis
rests upon Jerusalem, have been led to give an altogether erroneous
explanation. It is no more the Ark of the Covenant which will then be
the throne of the Lord, but _all_ Jerusalem. Thus, _e.g._, after the
example of _Jarchi_ and _Abarbanel_, _Manasseh ben Israel_,
_Conciliator_, p. 196: "If we keep in mind that, in the tabernacle or
temple, the Ark was the place where the Lord dwelt (hence Ex. xxv. 22:
'I will speak with thee from above the mercy-seat, from between the two
cherubim'), we shall find that the Lord here says, that the Ark indeed
had formerly been the dwelling-place of the Godhead, but that, at the
time of Messiah, not some one part of the temple only would be filled
with the Godhead, but that this glory should be given to all Jerusalem;
so that whosoever would be in her would have the prophetic spirit." If
it had been the intention of the Prophet to convey this meaning, the
word _all_ could not have been omitted. The throne of the [Pg 395]
Lord, Jerusalem had been even formerly, in so far as she possessed in
her midst the Ark of the Covenant, and hence was the residence of
Jehovah, the city of the great King, Ps. xlviii. 3. The words in the
parallel member: "Because the name of the Lord is at Jerusalem," show
that Jerusalem is called the throne of the Lord, because there is now
in her the true throne of the Lord, just as, formerly, the Ark of the
Covenant. The antithesis to what precedes leads us to expect a
gradation, not in point of quantity, but of quality. The emphasis rests
rather on: "The throne of the Lord;" and these words receive from the
antithesis the more definite qualification: the true throne of the
Lord. Quite similarly, those who boasted that over the Cherubim was the
throne of God, and that the Ark of the Covenant was His footstool, are
told in Is. lxvi. 1: "The heaven is my (true) throne, and the earth my
(true) footstool;" comp. the passages according to which the Ark of the
Covenant is designated as the footstool of God, and, hence, the place
over the Cherubim of the Ark of the Covenant as the throne of the Lord,
p. 387; and farther, Is. lx. 13; Ezra i. 26.--The highest prerogative
of the covenant-people, their highest privilege over the world, is to
have God in the midst of them; and this prerogative, this privilege, is
now to be bestowed upon them in the most perfect manner; so that idea
and reality shall coincide. Perfectly parallel in substance are such
passages as Ezek. xliii., in which the Shechinah which, at the
destruction of the temple had withdrawn, returns to the new temple, the
Kingdom of God in its new and more glorious form. Ver. 2. "And behold
the glory of the God of Israel came from the way of the East; and its
voice was like the voice of great waters, and the earth shone with its
splendour." Ver. 7. "And He said unto me, son of man, behold the place
of _my throne_, and the place of the soles of my feet, where I will
dwell in the midst of the children of Israel for ever, and the house of
Israel shall no more defile my holy place." Zech. ii. 14 (10): "Sing
and rejoice, O daughter of Zion; for, lo, I come and dwell in the midst
of thee," with an allusion to Exod. xxix. 45: "And I dwell among the
children of Israel, and will be their God." The Prophet declares that
the full realization of this promise is reserved for the future; but it
could not be so, unless it had already been realised, throughout all
past history, in God's [Pg 396] dwelling over the Ark of the Covenant;
compare Zech. viii. 3: "Thus saith the Lord, I return unto Zion, and
dwell in the midst of Jerusalem."--If we enquire after the fulfilment,
we are at once met by the words in John i. 14: [Greek: kai ho logos
sarx egeneto kai eskenosen en hemin, kai etheasametha ten doxan autou,
doxan hos monogenous para patros]; and that so much the more that these
words contain an evident allusion to the former dwelling of God in the
temple, of which the incarnation of the Logos is looked upon as the
highest consummation. It is true that the dwelling of God among His
people by means of the [Greek: pneuma Christou] must not be separated
from the personal manifestation of God in Christ, in whom dwelt the
fulness of the Godhead bodily, [Greek: somatikos]. The former stands to
the latter in the same relation, as does the river to the fountain; it
is the river of living water flowing forth from the body of Christ.
Both together form the true tabernacle of God among men, the new true
Ark of the Covenant; for the old things are the [Greek: skia ton
mellonton, to de soma Christou], Col. ii. 17; comp. Rev. xxi. 22:
[Greek: kai naon ouk eidon en aute. ho gar Kurios, ho Theos ho
pantokrator naos autes esti, kai to arnion]. The typical import of the
Ark of the Covenant is expressly declared in Heb. ix. 4, 5, and that
which was typified thereby is intimated in chap. iv. 16: [Greek:
proserchomtha de meta parhresias to throno tes charitos], where Christ
is designated as the true mercy-seat, as the true Ark of the Covenant.
Just as, formerly, God could be found over the Ark of the Covenant
only, by those from among his people who sought Him; so we have now,
through Christ, boldness and access with confidence in God (Eph. iii.
12); and it is only when offered in His name, in living union with Him,
that our prayers are acceptable, John xvi. 23. A consequence of that
highest realization of the idea of the kingdom of God, and, at the same
time, a sign that it has taken place, and a measure of the blessings
which Israel has to expect from its re-union with the Church of God, is
the gathering of the Gentiles into it, such as, by way of type and
prelude, took place even at the lower manifestations of the presence of
God among the people; compare, _e.g._, Josh. ix. 9: "And they (the
Gibeonites) said unto him: From a very far country thy servants are
come, because of the name ([Hebrew: lwM]) of Jehovah thy God, for we
have heard the fame of Him, and all that He did in Egypt, [Pg 397] and
all that He did to the two kings of the Amorites," &c. In a manner
quite similar it is, in Zech. ii. 15 (11) also, connected with the
Lord's dwelling in Jerusalem: "And many nations shall be joined to the
Lord in that day; and they shall be my people; and I dwell in the midst
of thee."--[Hebrew: lwM ihvh lirvwliM] must be literally translated:
"On account of the name of the Lord (belonging) to Jerusalem," for:
because the name of the Lord belongs to Jerusalem--is there at home The
name of the Lord is the Lord himself, in so far as He reveals His
invisible nature, manifests himself In the name, His deeds are
comprehended; and hence it forms a bridge betwixt existing and knowing.
A God without a name is a [Greek: theos agnostos], Acts xviii. 23.
There is an allusion to Deut. xii. 5: "But unto the place which the
Lord your God shall choose out of all your tribes _to put His name
there_, to dwell in it, unto it ye shall seek, and thither ye shall
come." Formerly, when God put His name in an imperfect manner only,
Israel only assembled themselves; but now, all the Gentiles.--The last
words: "Neither shall they walk any more," &c., are not by any means to
refer to the Gentiles, but to the members of the kingdom of Israel, or
also to the whole of the inhabitants of Jerusalem, to all the members
of the Kingdom of God, including the subjects of the kingdom of Israel.
This appears from a comparison of the fundamental passage of the
Pentateuch, as well as of the parallel passages in Jeremiah. Wherever
[Hebrew: wrirvt] occurs, the covenant-people are spoken of; everywhere
the walking after [Hebrew: wrirvt] of the heart is opposed to the
walking after the revealed law of Jehovah, which Israel alone
possessed. [Hebrew: wrirvt], which properly means "firmness," is then
used of hardness in sin, of wickedness.[5]



[Footnote 1: _Vitringa_ very correctly remarks on this passage:
"[Hebrew: bel], properly [Greek: ho echon], he who has any thing in his
possession is, by an ellipsis, applied to the husband who, in Exod.
xxi. 3, is rightly called [Hebrew: bel awh] _one who has a wife_."]

[Footnote 2: Against the explanation of _Maurer_: "For I am your Lord;"
and that of _Ewald_: "I take you under my protection," it is decisive
that [Hebrew: bel] never means "to be Lord," far less "to take under
protection." [Hebrew: bel], which properly means "to possess," is very
commonly used of marriage;--as early as in the Decalogue, the wife
appears as the noblest _possession_ of the husband--so that _a priori_
this signification is suggested and demanded.]

[Footnote 3: It is from the circumstance that modern Exegesis is unable
to comprehend the prophetic anticipation of the Future, that the
assertion has proceeded (_Movers_, _Hitzig_) that, even before the
Chaldean destruction, the Ark "must have disappeared in a mysterious
manner." In the view of the Chaldean destruction the Lord is, in Ps.
xcix. 1 (comp. Ps. lxxx. 2), designated as He who sitteth over the
Cherubim. In 2 Chron. xxxv. 3, we have a distinct historical witness
for the existence of the Ark, so late as the 18th year of Josiah. The
fable in 2 Maccab. ii. 4, ff., supposes that the Ark was at its
ordinary place, down to the time of the breaking in of the Chaldean
catastrophe. One might as well infer from chap. iii. 18, that, at the
time when these words were spoken, Judah must already, "in a mysterious
manner," have come into the land of the North.]

[Footnote 4: _Baehr_ advances the assertion, "In a (the) cloud" is
equivalent to: "in darkness." But the parallel passages, Exod. xl. 34
ff., Numb. ix. 15, 16, quoted by _J. H. Michaelis_, are quite
sufficient to overthrow this assertion. And these parallel passages are
so much the more to the point, that by the article the cloud is
designated as being already known; compare _Hofmann_, _Schriftbeweis_
ii. 1, S. 36. The cloud in ver. 13 is not identical with that in ver.
2, but is its necessary parallel. The cloud in ver. 2 symbolises the
truth that the Lord is a consuming fire (compare my remarks on Rev. i.
7); that in ver. 13 is an embodied _Kyrie eleison_, compare remarks on
Rev. v. 8. Cloud with cloud,--that is a noble advice for the Church
when she is threatened by the judgments of God. A thorough refutation
of _Baehr_ has been given by _W. Neumann_: _Beitraege zur Symbolik des
Mos. Cultus_, _Zeitschr. f. Luth. Theol._, 1851, i.]

[Footnote 5: In a certain sense, one may say that [Hebrew: wrirvt lb]
is a [Greek: hapax legomenon]. It occurs independently in one single
passage only, in Deut. xxix. 18; in the other passages (eight times in
Jeremiah, and besides, in Ps. lxxxi. 13), it was evidently not taken
from the living _usus loquendi_ from which it had disappeared, but from
the fundamental passage in the written code of law. This fact will, _a
priori_, appear probable, when we keep in mind that, among all the
books of the Pentateuch, Jeremiah has chiefly Deuteronomy before his
eyes; and among all the chapters of Deuteronomy, none more than the
29th; and that Ps. lxxxi. is pervaded by literal allusions to the
Pentateuch. But it is put beyond all doubt, when we enter upon a
comparison of the passage in Deuteronomy with the parallel passages.
Here we must begin with Jer. xxiii. 17, where the verbal agreement
comes out most strongly, and then we shall, in the other passages also
(vii. 24, ix. 13, xi. 8, xvi. 12, xviii. 12, and the passage under
consideration), easily perceive that the word has been borrowed. From a
comparison with the fundamental passage, it appears that it is the
intention of the Prophet to convey here the promise of an eternal
duration of the regained blessing, and to keep off the thought that
possibly the people might again, as formerly, fall from grace. Of him
who walks after the [Hebrew: wrirvt] of his heart, it is said in Deut.
xxix. 19 (20): "The Lord will not be willing to forgive him; for then
the anger of the Lord and His jealousy shall smoke against that man,
and all the curses that are written in this book shall lie upon him,
and the Lord blots out his name from under heaven."]



[Pg 398]




                           CHAPTER XXIII. 1-8.


These verses form a portion only of a greater whole, to which, besides
the whole of chap. xxii., chap. xxiii. 9-40 also belongs. For these
verses contain a prophecy against the false prophets, and by the way
also, against the degenerated priesthood (comp. ver. 11); and this
prophecy easily unites itself with the preceding prophecy against the
kings, so as to form one prophecy against the corrupt leaders of the
people of God. But, for the exposition of the verses before us, it is
only the connection with chap. xxii. which is of importance, and that
so much so that, without carefully attending to it, they cannot at all
be thoroughly understood. For this reason, we shall confine ourselves
to bring it out more clearly.

The Prophet reproves and warns the kings of Judah, first, in general,
announcing to them the judgments of the Lord upon them and their
people,--the fulfilment of the threatenings, Deut. xxix. 22 ff.--if
they are to continue in their hitherto ungodly course, chap. xxii. 1-9.
In order to make a stronger impression, he then particularizes the
general threatening, showing how God's recompensing justice manifests
itself in the fate of the individual apostate kings. First, Jehoahaz is
brought forward, the son and the immediate successor of Josiah, whom
Pharaoh-Necho dethroned and carried with him to Egypt, vers. 10-12. The
declaration concerning him forms a commentary on the name Shallum,
_i.e._, the recompensed one, he whom the Lord recompenses according to
his deeds,--which name the Prophet gives to him instead of the
meaningless name Jehoahaz, _i.e._, God holds. His father, who met his
death in the battle against the Egyptians, may be called happy when
compared with him; for he never returns to his native [Pg 399] land; he
lives and dies in a foreign land. The next whom he brings forward is
Jehoiakim, vers. 13-19. He is a despot who does every thing to ruin the
people committed to him. There is, therefore, the most glaring contrast
between his beautiful name and his miserable fate. The Lord, instead of
raising him up, will cast him down to the lowest depth; not even an
honourable burial is to be bestowed upon him. No one weeps or laments
over him; like a trodden down carcass, he lies outside the gates of
Jerusalem, the city of the great King, which he attempted to wrest from
him, and make his own. Then follows a parenthetical digression, vers.
20-23. Apostate Judah is addressed. The judgment upon her kings is not
one with which she has nothing to do, as little as their guilt belongs
to them as individuals only. It is, at the same time a judgment upon
the people which, by the Lord's anger which they have called forth by
their wickedness, is thrown down into the depth, from the height on
which the Lord's mercy had raised them.--Next follows Jehoiachin, vers.
24-30. In his name "The _Lord_ will establish," the word _will_ has no
foundation; the Lord _will_ reject him, cast him away, and break him in
pieces like a worthless vessel. With his mother, he shall be carried
away from his native land, and die in exile and captivity. Irrevocable
is the Lord's decree, that none of his sons shall ascend the throne of
David, so that he, having begotten children in vain, is to be esteemed
as one who is childless.

At the commencement of the section under consideration (vers. 1 and 2),
the contents of chap. xxii. are comprehended into one sentence. "Woe to
the shepherds that destroy and scatter the flock of the Lord." Woe,
then, to those shepherds who have done so. With this is then,
in vers. 3-8, connected the announcement of salvation for the poor
scattered flock. For the same reason, that the Lord visits upon those
who have hitherto been their shepherds, the wickedness of their
doings--viz., because of His being the chief Shepherd, or because of
His covenant-faithfulness, He will in mercy remember them also, gather
them from their dispersion, give, instead of the bad shepherds, a good
one, viz., the long promised and longed for great descendant of David,
who, being a _righteous_ King, shall diffuse justice and righteousness
in the land, and thus [Pg 400] acquire for it righteousness and
salvation from the Lord. So great shall the mercy of the Future be,
that thereby the greatest mercy in the people's past history--their
deliverance out of Egypt--shall be altogether cast into the shade.

There cannot be any doubt that the whole prophecy belongs to the reign
of Jehoiakim; for the end of Jehoiakim and the fate of Jehoiachin are
announced as future events.

_Eichhorn_ asserts that this section was composed under Zedekiah; but
he could do so only by proceeding from his erroneous fundamental view,
that the prophecies are veiled descriptions of historical events. "When
Jeremiah"--so he says--"delivered this discourse, Jehoiakim had not
only already met his ignominious end (xxii. 19), but Jeconiah also was,
with his mother, already carried away captive to Babylon." It is matter
of astonishment that _Dahler_, without holding the same fundamental
view, could yet adopt its result. He specially refers to the
circumstance that, in ver. 24, Jehoiachin is addressed as king,--a
circumstance by which _Berthold_ also supports his view, who, cutting
the knot, advances the position that vers. 1-19 belong to the reign of
Jehoiakim, but vers. 20--xxxii. 8 to the time when Jehoiachin was
carried away to Babylon. (_Maurer_ and _Hitzig_ too suppose that vers.
20 ff. were added at a later period, under the reign of Jehoiachin).
But what difficulty is there in supposing that the Prophet transfers
himself into the time, when he who is now a hereditary prince will be
king,--of which the address is then a simple consequence? It is
undeniable that a connection with chap. xxi. takes place, in which
chapter Jeremiah announces to Zedekiah, threatened by the Chaldeans,
the fall of the Davidic house, and the capture and destruction of the
city. And this connection is to be accounted for by the fact that
Jeremiah here connects with this announcement a former prophecy, in
which, under the reign of Jehoiakim, he had foretold the fall of the
Davidic house. The fate of the house of David is the subject common to
both the discourses. _Kueper_ (_Jeremias_, _libror. Sacror. interpres_,
p. 58), supposes that, in the message to Zedekiah, Jeremiah had, at
that time, repeated his former announcement; but this supposition is
opposed by the circumstance that, in chaps. xxii., xxiii., there is no
trace of a reference to Zedekiah and his embassy. _Ewald_ asserts that
Jeremiah [Pg 401] here only puts together what "perhaps" he had
formerly spoken regarding the three kings; but the words in chap. xxii.
1: "Go down into the house of the king of Judah and speak there this
word," is conclusive against this assertion. For, according to these
words, we have here not something put together, but a discourse which
was delivered at a distinct, definite time; although nothing prevents
us from supposing that the going down was done in the Spirit only.

We have here still to make an investigation concerning the names of the
three kings occurring in chap. xxii., the result of which is of
importance for the exposition of ver. 5.--It cannot but appear strange
that the same king who, in the Book of the Kings, is called Jehoahaz,
is here called Shallum only; that the same who is there called
Jehoiachin, has here the name of Jeconias, which is abbreviated into
Conias. The current supposition is, that the two kings had two names
each. But this supposition is unsatisfactory, because, by the context
in which they stand, the names employed by Jeremiah too clearly appear
as _nomina realia_, as new names given to them by which the contrast
between the name and thing was to be removed, and hence are evidently
of the same nature with the _nomen reale_ of the good Shepherd in chap.
xxiii. 6, which, with quite the same right, could have been changed
into a _nomen proprium_ in the proper sense, as has, indeed, been done
by the LXX. The numerous passages in the prophets, where the name
occurs as a designation of the nature and character, _e.g._, Is. ix. 5,
lxii. 4; Jer. xxxiii. 16; Ezek. xlviii. 35, plainly show that a name
which has merely a prophetical warrant (and such an one alone takes
place here, although the name Shallum occurs also in 1 Chron. iii. 15
[in the historical representation itself, however, Jehoahaz is used in
the Book of Kings, and 2 Chron. xxxvi. 1], and the name Jeconias
likewise in 1 Chron. iii. 16, while Jehoiakim is found not only in the
Book of Kings, but also in Ezek. i. 2; for it is quite possible that
those later writers may have drawn from Jeremiah), cannot simply be
considered as a _nomen proprium_; but, on the contrary, that there is a
strong probability that it is not so. And this probability becomes
certainty when that name occurs, either _alone_, as _e.g._, Shallum, or
_first_, as Jeconiah, (which occurs again in chap. xxiv. 1, xxvii. 20;
the abbreviated [Pg 402] Coniah in xxxvii. 1, while, which is well to
be observed, we have in the historical account, chap. lii. 31,
Jehoiachin) in a context, such as that under consideration; especially
when this phenomenon occurs in a prophet such as Jeremiah, in whom,
elsewhere also, many traces of holy wit, and even punning, can be
pointed out.--With reference to the calamity which more and more
threatened Judah, pious Josiah had given to his sons names, which
announced salvation. According to his wish, these names should be as
many actual prophecies, and would, indeed, have proved themselves to be
such, unless they who bore them had made them of no avail by their
apostacy from the Lord, and had thus brought about the most glaring
contrast between idea and reality. That comes out first in the case of
Jehoahaz. He whom the Lord should _hold_, was violently and
irresistibly carried away to Egypt. The Prophet, therefore, calls him
Shallum, _i.e._, the _recompensed_,--not _retribution_, as _Hiller_,
_Simonis_, and _Roediger_ think, nor _retributor_ according to _Fuerst_
(comp. _Ewald_ Sec. 154d); the same who, in 1 Chron. v. 38, is called
Shallum, is in 1 Chron. ix. 11, called Meshullam--he upon whom the Lord
has visited the wickedness of his deeds.--As regards the name Jehoiakim
and Jehoiachin, we must, above all things, keep in view the relation of
these names to the promise given to David. In 2 Sam. vii. 12 it is
said: "And I cause to rise up ([Hebrew: vhqimti]) thy seed after thee,
which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish ([Hebrew:
vhkinti]) his kingdom." This passage contains the ground of _both_
names; and this is the more easily explained, since both of them have
one author, Jehoiakim. Even his former name Eliakim had probably been
given to him by his father Josiah with a view to the promise. When
Pharaoh, however, desired him to change his name--as the name itself
shows, we cannot but supply, in 2 Kings xxiii. 31, such a request to a
proposal which was afterwards approved of by Pharaoh--he performed that
change in such a manner as to bring it into a still nearer relation to
the promise, in which, not El, but Jehovah, is expressly mentioned as
He who promised; and indeed the matter proceeded from Jehovah, the God
of Israel. As, however, from the whole character of Jehoiakim, we
cannot suppose that the twofold naming proceeded from true piety,
nothing is more natural [Pg 403] than to account for it from an
opposition to the prophets. The centre of their announcements was
formed by the impending calamity from the North, and the decline of the
Davidic family. The promise given to David shall indeed be fulfilled in
the Messiah; but not till after a previous deep abasement. Jehoiakim
mocking at these threatenings, means to transfer the salvation from the
future into the present. In his own name, and that of his son, he
presented a standing protest to the prophetic announcement; and this
protest could not but call forth a counter-protest, which we find
expressed in the prophecy under consideration. The Prophet first
overthrows the false interpretation: Jehoiakim is not Jehoiakim, and
Jehoiachin is not Jehoiachin, chap. xxii.; he then restores the right
interpretation: the true Jehoiakim is, and remains, the Messiah, chap.
xxiii. 5. As regards the first point, he. in the case of Jehoiakim,
contents himself with the _actual_ contrast, and omits to substitute a
truly significant name for the usurped one, which may most easily be
accounted for from the circumstance, that he thought it to be
unsuitable to exercise any kind of wit, even holy wit, against the then
reigning king. But the case is different with regard to Jehoiachin. The
first change of the name into Jeconiah has its cause not in itself; the
two names have quite the same meaning; it had respect to the second
change into Coniah only. In Jeconiah we have the Future; and this is
put first, in order that, by cutting off the [Hebrew: i], the sign of
the Future, he might cut off hope; a Jeconiah without the [Hebrew: i]
says only God establishes, but not that He _will_ establish. In
reference to these names, _Grotius_ came near the truth; but he erred
in the nearer determination, because he did not see the true state of
the matter; so that, according to him, it amounts to a mere play: "The
Jod," he says, "with which the name begins, is taken away, to intimate
that his head shall be diminished; and a Vav is added at the end as a
sign of contempt, _q.d._ that Coniah!" _Lightfoot_ comes nearer to the
truth; yet even he was not able to gain assent to it (compare against
him _Hiller_ and _Simonis_ who thought his views scarcely worth
refuting), because he took an one-sided view. He remarks (_Harmon._ p.
275): "By taking away the first syllable, God intimated that He would
not establish to the progeny of Solomon the [Pg 404] uninterrupted
government and royal dignity, as Jehoiakim, by giving that name to his
son, seems to have expected." Besides these two, compare farther,
_Alting_, _de Cabbala sacra_ Sec. 73.

In conclusion, we must still direct attention to chap. xx. 3. Who,
indeed, could infer from that passage, that, by way of change, _Pashur_
was called also _Magor-Missabib_?

Chap. xxiii. 1. "_Woe to shepherds that destroy and scatter the sheep
of my pasture, saith the Lord._"

It must be well observed that [Hebrew: reiM] is here without the
article, but, in ver. 2, with it. _Venema_ remarks on this: "A general
woe upon bad shepherds is premised, which is soon applied to the
shepherds of Judah, _q.d._, since Jehovah has denounced a woe upon all
bad shepherds, therefore ye bad shepherds," &c. By the "shepherds,"
several interpreters would understand only the false prophets and
priests. Others would at least have them thought of, along with the
kings. This view has exercised an injurious influence upon the
understanding of the subsequent Messianic announcement, inasmuch as it
occasioned the introduction into it of features which are altogether
foreign to it. It is only when it is perceived, that the bad shepherds
refer to the kings exclusively, that it is seen that, in the
description of the good Shepherd, that only is applicable which has
reference to Him as a King. But the very circumstance that, according
to a correct interpretation, nothing else is found in this description,
is a sufficient proof that, by the bad shepherds, the kings only can be
understood. But all doubt is removed when we consider the close
connection of the verses under consideration with chap. xxii. In
commenting upon chap. iii. 15, we saw that, ordinarily, rulers only are
designated by the shepherds; compare, farther, chap. xxv. 34-36, and
the imitation and first interpretation of the passage under review by
Ezekiel, in chap. xxxiv. Ps. lxxviii. 70, 71: "He chose David his
servant, and took him from the sheep-folds. He took him from behind the
ewes to feed Jacob, His people, and Israel, His inheritance," shows
that a typical interpretation of the former circumstances of David
lies at the foundation of this _usus loquendi_; compare Ezek. xxxiv.
23, 24: "And I raise over them one Shepherd, and he feedeth them, my
servant David; he shall feed them, and he shall be [Pg 405] their
shepherd."--What is to be understood by the destroying and scattering,
must be determined partly from ver. 3 and vers. 13 ff. of the preceding
chapter; partly from ver. 3 of the chapter before us. The former
passages show that the acts of violence of the kings, their oppressions
and extortions, come here into consideration (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2,
3: "Woe be to the shepherds of Israel that do feed themselves! Should
not the shepherds feed the flocks? Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you
with the wool, ye kill them that are fed, &c., and with force and with
cruelty ye rule them"), while the latter passage shows that it is
chiefly the heaviest guilt of the kings which comes into consideration,
viz., all that by which they became the cause of the people's being
carried away into captivity. To this belonged, besides their foolish
political counsels, which were based upon ungodliness (comp. chap. x.
21), the negative (_Venema_: "It was their duty to take care that the
true religion, the spiritual food of the people, was rightly and
properly exercised"), and positive promotion of ungodliness, and of
immorality proceeding from it, by which the divine judgments were
forcibly drawn down. It is in this contrast of idea and reality
(_Calvin_: "It is a contradiction that the shepherd should be a
destroyer"), that the woe has its foundation, and that the more, that
it is pointed out that the flock, which they destroy and scatter, is
_God's_ flock. (_Calvin_: "God intimates that, by the unworthy
scattering of the flock, an atrocious injury had been committed against
himself") [Hebrew: caN mreiti] must not be explained by: "the flock of
my feeding," _i.e._, which I feed. For, wherever [Hebrew: mreit] occurs
by itself, it always has the signification "pasture," but never the
signification _pastio_, _pastus_ commonly assigned to it. This
signification, which is quite in agreement with the form of the word,
must therefore be retained in those passages also where it occurs in
connection with [Hebrew: caN], when it always denotes the relation of
Israel to God. Israel is called the flock of God's pasture, because He
has given to them the fertile Canaan as their possession, compare my
remarks on Ps. lxxiv. 1. It is, at first sight, strange that a guilt of
the rulers only is spoken of, and not a guilt of the people; for every
more searching consideration shows that both are inseparable from one
another; that bad rulers proceed from the development of the nation,
and are, at the same time, a punishment [Pg 406] of its wickedness sent
by God. But the fact is easily accounted for, if only we keep in mind
that the Prophet had here to do with the kings only, and not with the
people. To them it could not serve for an excuse that their wickedness
was naturally connected with that of the people. This _natural_
connection was not by any means a necessary one, as appears from the
example of a Josiah, in whose case it was broken through by divine
grace. Nor were they justified by the circumstance, that they were rods
of chastisement in the hand of God. To this the Prophet himself
alludes, by substituting, in ver. 3: "I have driven away," for "you
have driven away," in ver. 2. All which they had to do, was to attend
to their vocation and duty; the carrying out of God's counsels belonged
to Him alone. From what we have remarked, it plainly follows that we
would altogether misunderstand the expression "flock of my pasture," if
we were to infer from it a contrast of the _innocent_ people with the
guilty kings. _Calvin_ remarks: "In short, when God calls the Jews the
flock of His pasture, He has no respect to their condition, or to what
they have deserved, but rather commends His grace which He has bestowed
upon the seed of Abraham." The kings have nothing to do with the moral
condition of the people; they have to look only to God's covenant with
them, which is for them a source of obligations so much the greater and
more binding than the obligations of heathen kings, as Jehovah is more
glorious than Elohim. The moral condition of the people does, to a
certain degree, not even concern God; how bad soever it is, He looks to
His covenant; and when more deeply viewed, even the outward scattering
of the flock is a gathering.

Ver. 2. "_Therefore thus saith the Lord the God of Israel, against the
shepherds that feed my people: Ye have scattered my flock and driven
them away, and have not visited them; behold, I visit upon you the
wickedness of your doings, saith the Lord._"

In the designation of God as Jehovah the God of Israel, there is
already implied that which afterwards is expressly said. Because God is
Jehovah, the God of Israel, the crime of the kings is, at the same
time, a _sacrilegium_; they have desecrated God. It was just here that
it was necessary prominently to point out the fact, that the people
still continued to [Pg 407] be God's people. In another very important
aspect, they were indeed called _Lo-Ammi_ (Hos. i. 9); but that aspect
did not here come into consideration. _Calvin_: "They had estranged
themselves from God; and He too had, in His decree, already renounced
them. But, in one respect, God might consider them as aliens, while, in
respect to His covenant, He still acknowledged them as His, and hence
He calls them His people."--The words "that feed my people," render the
idea still more prominent and emphatic than the simple "the shepherds"
would have done, and hence serve to make more glaring the contrast
presented by the reality. The words "you have not visited them," seem,
at first sight, since graver charges have been mentioned before, to be
feeble. But that which they did, appears in its whole heinousness only
by that which they did not, but which, according to their vocation,
they ought to have done. This reference to their destination imparts
the greatest severity to the apparently mild reproof Similar is Ezek.
xxxiv. 3: "Ye eat the fat, and ye clothe you with the wool, ye kill
them that are fed, and ye feed not the flock." The visiting forms the
general foundation of every single activity of the shepherd, so that
the [Hebrew: la pqdtM] comprehends within itself all that which Ezekiel
particularly mentions in chap. xxxiv. 4: "The weak ye strengthen not,
and the sick ye heal not, and the wounded ye bind not up, and the
scattered ye bring not back, and the perishing ye seek not."--The
words: "the wickedness of your doings," look back to Deut. xxviii. 20:
"The Lord shall send upon thee curse, terror, and ruin in all thy
undertakings, until thou be destroyed, and until thou perish quickly,
_because of the wickedness of thy doings_, that thou hast forsaken me."
The gentle allusion to that fearful threatening in that portion of the
Pentateuch, which was the best known of all, was sufficient to make
every one supplement from it that, which was there actually and
expressly uttered. Such an allusion to that passage of Deuteronomy can
be traced out, wherever the phrase [Hebrew: re melliM] occurs, which,
in later times, had become obsolete; compare chap. iv. 4 and xxi. 12
(in both of these passages [Hebrew: mpni], too, is introduced); Is. i.
16; Ps. xxviii. 4; Hos. ix. 15.

Ver. 3. "_And I will gather the remnant of my flock out of all the
countries whither I have driven them away, and I_ [Pg 408] _bring them
back again to their folds, and they are fruitful and increase._"

Compare chap. xxix. 14, xxxi. 8, 10; Ezek. xxxiv. 12, 13: "As a
shepherd looketh after his flock in the day that he is in the midst of
his flock, the scattered, so will I look after my flock, and I deliver
them out of all the places, where they have been scattered in the day
of clouds and of darkness. And I bring them out from the nations, and
gather them from the countries, and bring them to their land, and feed
them upon the mountains of Israel, in the valleys, and in all the
dwelling places of the land."--A spiritless clinging to the letter has,
here too, led several interpreters to suppose, that the Prophet had
here in view merely the return from the Babylonish captivity, and
perhaps, also, the blessings of the times of the Maccabees, besides and
in addition to it. Altogether apart from the consideration that, in
that case, the fulfilment would very little correspond to the
promise,--for, to the returning ones, Canaan was too little the land of
God to allow of our seeing, in this return, the whole fulfilment of
God's promise--we can, from the context, easily demonstrate the
opposite. With the gathering and bringing back appears, in ver. 4,
closely connected the raising of the good shepherds; and according to
ver. 5, that promise is to find, if not its sole fulfilment, at all
events its substance and centre, in the raising of David's righteous
Branch, the Messiah. And from vers. 7, 8, it appears that it is here
altogether inadmissible to suppose that these events will take place,
one after the other. The particle [Hebrew: lkN] with which these verses
begin, and which refers to the whole sum and substance of the preceding
promises, shows that the bringing back from the captivity, and the
raising of the Messiah, cannot, by any means, be separated from one
another; and to the same result we are led by the contents of the two
verses also. How indeed could it be said of the bodily bringing back
from the captivity, that it would far outshine the former deliverance
from Egypt, and would cause it to be altogether forgotten? The correct
view was stated as early as by _Calvin_, who says: "There is no doubt
that the Prophet has in view, in the first instance, the free return of
the people; but Christ must not be separated from this blessing of the
deliverance, for, otherwise, it would be difficult to [Pg 409] show the
fulfilment of this prophecy." The right of thus assuming a concurrent
reference to Christ is afforded to us by the circumstance, that Canaan
had such a high value for Israel, not because it was its fatherland in
the lower sense, but because it was the land of God, the place where
His glory dwelt. From this it follows that a bodily return was to the
covenant-people of value, in so far only as God manifested himself as
the God of the land. And since, before Christ, this was done in a
manner very imperfect, as compared with what was implied in the idea,
the value of such a return could not be otherwise than very
subordinate. And in like manner, it follows from it, that the gathering
and bringing back by Christ is included in the promise. For wherever
God is, there is Canaan. Whether it be the old fold, or a new one, is
surely of very little consequence, if only the good Shepherd be in the
midst of His sheep. _As a rule_, such externalities lie without the
compass of prophecy, which, having in view the substance, refers, as to
the way of its manifestation, to history. Into what ridiculous
assertions a false clinging to the letter may lead, appears from
remarks such as those of _Grotius_ on the second hemistich of the
following verse: "They shall live in security under the powerful
protection of the Persian kings." Protection by the world, and
oppression by the world, differed very slightly only, in the case of
the covenant-people. The circumstance that Gentiles ruled over them at
all, was just that which grieved them; and this grief must therefore
continue (compare Neh. ix. 36, 37), although, by the grace of God, a
mild rule had taken the place of the former severe one; for this grace
of God had its proper value only as a prophecy and pledge of a future
greater one. The circumstance that it is to the _remnant_ only that the
gathering is promised (compare Is. x. 22; Rom. ix. 27), points to the
truth, that the divine mercy will be accompanied with justice. _Calvin_
remarks on this point: "The Prophet again confirms what I formerly
said, viz., mercy shall not be exercised until He has cleansed His
Church of filthiness, so great and so horrid, in which she at that time
abounded." One must beware of exchanging the Scriptural hope of a
conversion of Israel on a large scale, in contrast to the small [Greek:
ekloge] at the time of Christ and the Apostles, for the hope of a
_general_ conversion in the strict sense. [Pg 410] When considering the
relation of God to the free human nature, the latter is absolutely
impossible. When consistently carried out, it necessarily leads to the
doctrine of universal restoration. It is beyond doubt, that God _wills_
that all men should be saved; and it would necessarily follow that all
men could be saved, if all the members of one nation could be saved.
There is no word of Scripture in favour of it, except the [Greek: pas]
in Paul, which must just be interpreted and qualified by the contrast
to the _small_ [Greek: ekloge], while there are opposed to it a number
of declarations of Scripture,--especially all those passages of the
prophets where, to the remnant, to the escaped ones of Israel only,
salvation is promised. And, besides the Word of God, there are opposed
to it His deeds also,--especially the great typical prefiguration of
things spiritual by things external at the deliverance of the people
from Egypt, when the _remnant_ only came to Canaan, while the bodies of
thousands fell in the wilderness; and no less at the deliverance from
Babylon, when by far the greatest number preferred the temporary
delight in sin to delight in the Lord in His land.

Ver. 4. "_And I raise shepherds over them, and they feed them; and they
shall fear no more, nor be terrified, neither be lost, saith the
Lord._"

Even here, the reference to 2 Sam. vii. 12, and to the name of
Jehoiakim, is manifest, although, in the subsequent verse, it appears
still more distinctly, compare p. 401. This reference also is a proof
in favour of this prophecy's having been written under Jehoiakim. The
reference was, at that time, easily understood by every one; even the
slightest allusion was sufficient. This reference farther shows that
_Venema_, and several others who preceded him in this view, are wrong
in here thinking of the Maccabees. These are here quite out of the
question, inasmuch as they were not descended from David. Besides the
contrast between the people's apostacy and God's covenant-faithfulness,
the Prophet evidently has still another in view, viz., that between the
apostacy of the Davidic house, and God's faithfulness in the fulfilment
of the promise given to David. The single apostate members of this
family are destroyed, although, appropriating to themselves the
promise, they, in their names, promise deliverance and salvation to [Pg
411] themselves. But from the family itself, God's grace cannot depart;
just because Jehovah is God, a true Jehoiakim and Jehoiachin must rise
out of it. It thus appears that the Maccabees are here as little
referred to as Ezra and Nehemiah, of whom _Grotius_ thinks. Much
stronger ground is there for thinking of Zerubbabel, for his appearance
had really some reference to the promise to David, although as a weak
type and prelude only of the true fulfilment, to which he occupies the
same relation, as does the gathering from the Babylonish captivity to
the gathering by Christ. If, after all, we wish to urge the Plural, we
must not, by any means, sever our verse from ver. 5, and declare this
to be the sense: _first_ will I raise up to you shepherds; _then_, the
Messiah. We must, in that case, following _C. B. Michaelis_, rather
supplement: specially one, the Messiah. In _none_ of Jeremiah's
prophecies are there different stages and degrees in the salvation;
everywhere he has in his view the whole in its completion. Where this
is overlooked, the whole interpretation must necessarily take a wrong
direction, as is most clearly seen in the case of _Venema_. But there
is no reason at all for laying so much stress on the Plural. Every
Plural may be used for designating the idea of the whole species; and
this kind of designation was here so much the more obvious, that the
bad species, with which the good is here contrasted, consisted of a
series of individuals. With the bad pastoral office, the Prophet here
_first_ contrasts the good one; _then_ he gives, in ver. 5, a more
detailed description of the individual who is to represent the species,
in whom the idea of the species is to be completely realised. The
correctness of this interpretation is confirmed by the comparison of
the parallel passage in chap. xxxiii. 15, which, almost _verbatim_,
agrees with that under consideration, and in which only one descendant
of David, viz., the Messiah, is spoken of And that is quite natural;
for, in that passage, there is no antithesis to the bad shepherds,
which was the cause that here, at first, the species was made
prominent. And another confirmation is afforded by Ezek. xxxiv. With
him, too, one good shepherd is mentioned in contrast with the bad
shepherds.--The words: "And they feed them" stand in contrast to "Who
feed my people," in ver. 2. The shepherds mentioned in ver. 2 ought to
feed the flock; but, instead of doing [Pg 412] that, they feed
themselves (compare Ezek. xxxiv. 2); the shepherds, however, mentioned
in our verse, really feed. The former are shepherds in name only, but,
in reality, wolves; the latter are shepherds, both in name and reality.
[Hebrew: pqd] must be taken in the signification "to be missing,"
"lacking." (Compare the Remarks on chap. iii. 16.) There is an allusion
to [Hebrew: la pqdtM] in ver. 2. Because the bad shepherd does not
visit, the sheep are not sought, _q.d._, they are lost; but those who
did not visit, are now, in a very disagreeable manner, visited by God
([Hebrew: pqd elikM]); the good shepherd visits, and, therefore, the
sheep need not be sought. The clause: "They shall fear no more, nor be
terrified," receives its explanation from Ezek. xxxiv. 8: "Because my
flock are a prey, and meat to every beast of the field, because they
have no shepherd, and because my shepherds do not concern themselves
with the flock."

Ver. 5. "_Behold the days come, saith the Lord, and I raise unto David
a righteous Branch, and He ruleth as a King, and acteth wisely, and
worketh justice and righteousness in the land._"

The expression: "Behold the days come," according to the constant _usus
loquendi_ of Jeremiah, does not designate a progress in time, in
reference to what precedes, but only directs attention to the greatness
of that which is to be announced. It contains, at the same time, an
allusion to the contrast presented by the visible state of things,
which affords no ground for such a thing. How dark soever the present
state of things may be, the time is _still_ coming; although the heart
may loudly say. _No_, the word of _God_ must be more certain.
Concerning [Hebrew: cmH], compare Isa. iv. 2, and the passages of
Zechariah there quoted, [Hebrew: cdiq] stands here in the same
signification as in Zech. ix. 9,--different from that which it has in
Isa. liii. 11. In the latter passage, where the Servant of God is
described as the High Priest and sin-offering. His righteousness comes
into consideration as the fundamental condition of justification; here,
where He appears as King only,--as the cause of the diffusion of
justice and righteousness in the land. That there is implied in this a
contrast to the former kings, was pointed out as early as by
_Abarbanel_: "He shall not be an unrighteous seed, such as Jehoiakim
and his son, but a righteous [Pg 413] one." _Calvin_ also points out
"the obvious antithesis between Christ and so many false, and, as it
were, adulterous sons. For we know for certain that He alone was the
righteous seed of David; for although Hezekiah and Josiah were
legitimate successors, yet, when we look to others, they were, as it
were, monsters. Except three or four, all the rest were degenerate and
covenant-breakers." The words: "I raise unto David a righteous Branch"
are here, as well as in chap. xxxiii. 15, not by any means equivalent
to: a righteous Branch of David. On the contrary, David is designated
as he to whom the act of raising belongs, for whose sake it is
undertaken. God has promised to him the eternal dominion of his house.
How much soever, therefore, the members of this family may sin against
the Lord,--how unworthy soever the people may be to be governed by a
righteous Branch of David, God, as surely as He is God, must raise Him
for the sake of David. The word [Hebrew: mlK] must not be overlooked.
It shows that [Hebrew: mlK], which, standing by itself, may designate
also another government than by a king, such as, _e.g._, that of
Zerubbabel, is to be taken in its full sense. And this qualification
was so much the more necessary, that the deepest abasement of the house
of David, announced by the Prophet in chap. xxii., compare especially
ver. 30, was approaching, and that thereby every hope of its rising to
_complete_ prosperity seemed to be set aside. Since, therefore, the
faith in this event rested merely on the word, it was necessary that
the word should be as distinct as possible, in order that no one might
pervert, or explain it away. _Calvin_ remarks: "He shall rule as a
King, _i.e._, He shall rule gloriously; so that there do not merely
appear some relics of former glory, but that He flourish and be
powerful as a King, and attain to a perfection, such as existed under
David and Solomon; and even much more excellent."--As regards [Hebrew:
hwkil], we have already, in our remarks on chap. iii. 15, proved that
it never and nowhere means "to prosper," "to be prosperous," but always
"to act wisely." It has been shown by _Calvin_ that even the context
here requires the latter signification. He says: "The Prophet seems
here rather to speak of right judgment than of prosperity and success;
for we must read this in connexion with one another: He shall act
wisely, and then work justice and [Pg 414] righteousness. He shall be
endowed with the spirit of wisdom, as well as of justice and
righteousness; so that he shall perform all the offices and duties of a
king." Yet _Calvin_ has not exhausted the arguments which may be
derived from the context. The _whole_ verse before us treats of the
endowments of the King; the whole succeeding one, of the prosperity
which, by these endowments, is imparted to the people. To this may
still be added the evident contrast to the folly of the former
shepherds, which was the consequence of their wickedness, and which, in
the preceding chapter, had been described as the cause of their own,
and the people's destruction; compare chap. x. 21: "For the shepherds
are become brutish, and do not seek the Lord; therefore they do not act
wisely, and their whole flock is scattered." But if here the
signification "to act wisely" be established, then it is also in all
those passages where [Hebrew: hwkil] is used of David; compare remarks
on chap. iii. For the fact, that the Prophet has in view these
passages, and that, according to him, the reign of David is, in a more
glorious manner, to be revived in his righteous Branch, appears from
the circumstance that every thing else has its foundation in the
description of David's reign, in the books of Samuel. Thus the words:
"And he ruleth as a king, and worketh justice and righteousness in the
land," refer back to 2 Sam. viii. 15: "And David reigned over all
Israel, and David wrought justice and righteousness unto all his
people." The foundation of the announcement of ver. 6 is formed by 2
Sam. viii. 14 (compare ver. 6): "And the Lord gave prosperity ([Hebrew:
vivwe]) to David in all his ways." But if [Hebrew: hwkil], wherever it
occurs of David, must be taken in this sense, then the LXX. are right
also in translating Is. lii. 13 by [Greek: sunesei]: for, in that
passage, just as in the verse under consideration, David is referred to
as the type of the Messiah. The phrase [Hebrew: ewh mwpT vcdqh] is by
_De Wette_ commonly translated: "to _exercise_ justice and
righteousness." But the circumstance that, in Ps. cxlvi. 7, he is
obliged to give up this translation, proves that it is wrong. [Hebrew:
ewh] must rather be explained by "to work," "to establish." [Hebrew:
mwpT] is here, as everywhere else, the objective right and justice;
[Hebrew: cdqh], the subjective righteousness. The _working_ of justice
is the means by which _righteousness_ is wrought. The forced dominion
of justice is necessarily followed by the voluntary, [Pg 415] just as
the judgments of God, by means of which He is sanctified _upon_
mankind, are, at the same time, the means by which He is sanctified
_in_ them. The high vocation of the King to work justice and
righteousness rests upon His dignity, as the bearer of God's image;
comp. Ps. cxlvi. 7; chap. ix. 23: "For I the Lord work love, justice,
and righteousness in the land." Chap. xxii. 15 is, moreover, to be
compared, where it is said of Josiah, the true descendant of David, "he
wrought justice and righteousness," and chap. xxii. 3, where his
spurious descendants are admonished: "Work justice and righteousness,
and deliver the spoiled out of the hand of the oppressor, and do not
oppress the stranger; the fatherless and the widow do not wrong,
neither shed innocent blood in this place." Farther, still, is the
progress to be observed: the King is righteous, his righteousness
passeth over from him to the subjects; then follows salvation and
righteousness from the Lord.--To explanations, such as that of
_Grotius_, who, by the righteous Branch, understands Zerubbabel, we
here need the less to pay any attention, that the fact of his being in
this without predecessors or followers palpably proves it to be
erroneous. If, indeed, we could rely on _Theodoret's_ statement ("The
blinded Jews endeavour, with great impudence, to refer this to
Zerubbabel"--then follows the refutation), the older Jews must have led
the way to this perverted interpretation. But we cannot implicitly rely
on _Theodoret's_ statements of this kind. In the Jewish writings
themselves, not the slightest trace of such an interpretation is to be
found. The Chaldean Paraphrast is decidedly in favour of the Messianic
interpretation: [Hebrew: atN amr ii vaqiM ha ivmia ldvd mwiH dcdqh]
"Behold the days shall come, and I will raise up to David the righteous
Messiah, (not [Hebrew: dcdqia] 'the Messiah of the righteous,' as many
absurdly read), saith the Lord." _Eusebius_ (compare _Le Moyne_, _de
Jehova justitia nostra_, p. 23), it is true, refutes the interpretation
which refers it to Joshua, the son of Josedech; but we are not entitled
to infer from this circumstance, that this view found supporters in his
time. His intention is merely to guard against the erroneous
interpretation of [Greek: Iosedek] of the following verse in the
Alexandrian version ([Greek: kai touto to onoma autou, ho kalesei auton
kurios, Iosedek]). It can scarcely be imagined that the translators
themselves proceeded from this erroneous view. For [Pg 416] Josedech,
the father of Joshua the high-priest, is a person altogether obscure.
All which they intended, by their retaining the Hebrew form, was
certainly only the wish, to express that it was a _nomen proprium_
which occurred here; and they were specially induced to act thus by the
circumstance, that this name was, in their time, generally current, as
one of the proper names of the Messiah.

Ver. 6. "_And in His days Judah is endowed with salvation, and Israel
dwelleth safely; and this is the name whereby they shall call him: The
Lord our righteousness._"

It has already been pointed out that the first words here look back to
David. That which Jeremiah here expresses by several words, Zechariah
expresses more briefly, by calling the Sprout of David [Hebrew: cdiq
vnvwe] "righteous, and protected by God." It makes no difference that,
in that passage, the salvation, the inseparable concomitant of
righteousness, is ascribed to the King, its possessor; while, here, it
is ascribed to the people. For, in that passage, too, it is for his
subjects that salvation is attributed to the King who comes for Zion,
just as he is righteous for Zion also. Israel must here be taken either
in the restricted sense, or in the widest, either as the ten tribes
_alone_, or as the ten tribes along with Judah. It is a favourite
thought of Jeremiah, which recurs in all his Messianic prophecies, that
the ten tribes are to partake in the future prosperity and salvation.
He has a true tenderness for Israel; his bowels roar when he remembers
them, who were already, for so long a time, forsaken and rejected. His
lively hope for Israel is a great testimony of his lively faith. For,
in the case of Israel, the visible state of things afforded still less
ground for hope than in the case of Judah. There is here an allusion to
Deut. xxxiii. 28: ("And He thrusteth out thine enemy from before thee,
and saith: Destroy") "And Israel dwelleth in safety ([Hebrew: viwkN
iwral bTH]), alone, Jacob looketh upon a land of corn and wine, and his
heavens drop dew." There can be the less doubt of the existence of this
allusion, that this expression occurs, besides in Deuteronomy, and
in the verse under consideration, only once more in chap. xxxiii.
16,--that a reference to the majestic close of the blessing of Moses,
which certainly was in the hearts and mouths of all the pious, was very
natural, and that the word [Hebrew: tvwe] has there its analogy in ver.
29: [Pg 417] "Happy art thou, O Israel, who is like unto thee, a people
saved ([Hebrew: nvwe]) by the Lord, the shield of thy help, thy proud
sword; and thine enemies flatter thee, and thou treadest upon their
high places." This glorious destination of the covenant-people, which,
hitherto, had been so imperfectly only realized (most perfectly
under David, compare 2 Sam. viii. 6, 14), shall, under the reign
of the Messiah, be carried out in such a manner that idea and reality
shall fully coincide. The covenant-people is to appear in its full
dignity.--In the second hemistich of the verse, the reading requires
first to be established. Instead of the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] which
is found in the text, and which is the third pers. Sing. with the
Suffix, several MSS. (compare _De Rossi_), have the third pers. Plur.
[Hebrew: iqrav]. Several controversial writers, such as _Raim.
Martini_, _Pug. Fid._ p. 517, and _Galatinus_, iii. 9, p. 126, (The
Jews of our time assert that here Jeremiah did not say "they shall
call," [Hebrew: iqrav], as we read it, but "he shall call him,"
[Hebrew: iqrav]; and they declare this to be the sense: "This is the
name of Him who shall call him, viz., the Messiah: Our righteous God,")
declare the latter to be unconditionally correct, and assert that the
other had originated from an intentional Jewish corruption, got up for
the purpose of setting aside the divinity of the Messiah, which, to
them, was so offensive. This allegation, however, is certainly
unfounded. It is true, that some Jewish interpreters availed themselves
of the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] for the purpose stated. Thus _Rabbi
Saadias Haggaon_, according to _Abenezra_ and _Manasseh Ben Israel_,
who explain: "And this is the name by which the Lord will call him: Our
righteousness." But it by no means follows from this, that they
invented the reading; it may have existed, and they only connected
their perversion with it. That the latter was indeed the case, appears
from the circumstance that by far the greater number of Jewish
interpreters and controversialists rejected this perversion, because it
was in opposition to the accents (compare especially _Abenezra_ and
_Norzi_ on the passage), and acknowledged [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv] to be
the name of the Messiah. The reading [Hebrew: iqrav] must be
unconditionally rejected, because it has by far the smallest external
authority in its favour. It is true, that its supporters (comp.
especially _Schulze_, _vollst. Critik der gewoehnlichen_ [Pg 418]
_Bibelausgaben_, S. 321) have endeavoured to make up for its deficiency
in manuscript authority, by appealing to the authority of the ancient
translators, all of whom, with the sole exception of the Alexandrian
version, according to them, express it. But this assertion is entirely
without foundation. The _vocabunt eum_ of _Jonathan_ and the Vulgate is
the correct translation of [Hebrew: iqrav]. And when _Jerome_, in
opposition to the Alex., remarks that, according to the Hebrew, the
translation ought to be: _Nomen ejus vocabunt_, he does not contend
against their use of the Singular _per se_, but only against their
arbitrarily supplying "Jehovah" as the subject; against their
explaining "The Lord shall call," instead of "one" shall call. The
manner in which the false reading [Hebrew: iqrav] first arose, is
clearly seen from the reasons by which its later defenders endeavour to
support it; compare especially _Schulze_ l. c. The chief argument is
the erroneous supposition that the third Plur. only could be used
impersonally. To this was farther added the use of the rarer Suffix
[Hebrew: v] instead of the common [Hebrew: -hv]--But from internal
reasons, too, the reading [Hebrew: iqrav] is objectionable; the
designation of the object of calling cannot be omitted.--There cannot
be any doubt that we are not allowed to refer the Suffix in [Hebrew:
iqrav] to Israel, (_Ewald_: "And this is their name by which they call
them,") but to the Messiah. For it is only in this case, that those who
call, viz., Judah or Israel, the Members of the Church, are indirectly
mentioned in the preceding words; and the Messiah is, in both verses,
the chief person to whom all the other clauses refer. At all events,
the _then_ could not, in that case, have been omitted, as in this
context every thing depends upon the connection of the salvation with
the person of the King; and this connection must be clearly and
distinctly expressed. We now come to [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv]. Great
difference of opinion prevails as to the explanation of these words.
The better portion of the Jewish interpreters, indeed, likewise
consider them as names of the Messiah, but not in such a manner that He
is called "Jehovah," and then, in apposition to it, "Our
righteousness," but rather in such a manner that [Hebrew: ihvh cdqnv]
is an abbreviation of the whole sentence. Thus the Chaldean, who thus
paraphrases: "And this is the name by which they shall call him:
Righteousness [Pg 419] will be bestowed upon us from the face of the
Lord;" _Kimchi_, "Israel shall call the Messiah by this name: The Lord
our righteousness, because at His time, the righteousness of the Lord
will be to us firm, continuous, everlasting;" the [Hebrew: spr eqriM]
(in _Le Moyne_, p. 20): "Scripture calls the name of the Messiah: The
Lord our righteousness, because He is the Mediator of God, and we
obtain the righteousness of God by His ministry." Besides to chap.
xxxiii. 16, they refer to passages such as Exod. xvii. 15, where Moses
calls the altar "Jehovah my banner;" to Gen. xxxiii. 20, where Jacob
calls it [Hebrew: al alhi iwral]. _Grotius_ follows these expositors,
only that he dilutes the sense still more. The other Christian
expositors, (the Vulgate excludes every other interpretation, even by
its translation: _Dominus justus noster_) on the contrary, contend with
all their might for the opinion, that the Messiah is here called
Jehovah, and hence must be truly God. That which _Dassov_ i. h. 1.
remarks: "Since then the Messiah is called Jehovah, we have firm ground
for inferring, that He is truly God, inasmuch as that name is peculiar
and essential to the true God," is the argument common to all of them.
_Le Moyne_ wrote in defence of this explanation a whole book, which we
have already quoted, but from which little is to be learned. Even
_Calvin_, who elsewhere sometimes erred from an exaggerated dread of
doctrinal prejudice, decidedly adopts it. He remarks: "Those who judge
without prejudice and bitterness, easily see that that name belongs to
Christ, in so far as He is God, just as the name of the Son of David is
assigned to Him in reference to His human nature. To all those who are
just and unprejudiced, it will be clear that Christ is here
distinguished by a twofold attribute; so that the Prophet commends Him
to us, both as regards the glory of His deity, and his true human
nature." By righteousness he, too, understands justification through
the merits of Christ, "for Christ is not righteous for himself, but
received righteousness in order to communicate it to us" (1 Cor. i.
30). We have the following observations to make in reference to this
exposition. 1. The principal mistake in it is this, that it has been
overlooked that the Prophet here expresses the nature of the Messiah
and of His time in the form of a _nomen proprium_. If the words were
thus: "And this is Jehovah our righteousness," we should be fully [Pg
420] entitled to take Jehovah as a personal designation of the Messiah.
But in reference to a name, it is as common, as it is natural, to take
from a whole sentence the principal words only, and to leave it to the
reader or hearer to supply the rest. In the case of all _naming_,
brevity is unavoidable, as is proved by the usual abbreviation of even
those proper names which consist of one word only. The two cases
mentioned by _Kimchi_ will serve as instances. "Jehovah my Banner" is a
concise expression for: "This altar is consecrated to Jehovah my
Banner;" [Hebrew: al alhi iwral] for: "This altar belongs to the
Almighty, the God of Israel." A number of other instances might easily
be quoted; one need only compare, in _Hiller's_ and _Simonis'_
Onomastica, the names which are compounded with Jehovah. Thus, _e.g._,
Jehoshua, _i.e._, Jehovah salvation, is a concise expression for:
Jehovah will grant me salvation; Jehoram, _i.e._, _Jehovah altus_, for:
I am consecrated to the exalted God of Israel. Most perfectly
analogous, however, is the name Zedekiah, _i.e._, the righteousness of
the Lord, for: He under whose reign the Lord will grant righteousness
to His people. This name, moreover, seems to refer directly to the
prophecy before us. Just as Eliakim, by changing his name into
Jehoiakim, intended to represent himself as he in whom the prophecy in
2 Sam. vii. would be fulfilled; so he who was formerly called Mattaniah
changed, at the instance of Nebuchadnezzar (who had, indeed, no other
object in view than that, as a sign of his supremacy, his name should
be different from that by which he was formerly called, and who left
the choice of the name to Mattaniah himself), his name into Zedekiah,
imagining that in a manner so easy, he would become the Jehovah Zidkenu
announced by Jeremiah, and longed for by the people. 2. The preceding
argument only showed that there is nothing opposed to the exposition:
He by whom and under whom Jehovah will be our righteousness. A positive
proof, however, in favour of it is offered by the parallel passage,
chap. xxxiii. 15, 16: "In those days and at that time will I cause a
righteous Branch to grow up unto David; and He worketh justice and
righteousness in the land. In those days shall Judah be saved, and
Jerusalem shall dwell safely, and this is the name which they shall
give to _her_: Jehovah our righteousness." Here Jehovah Zidkenu by no
means [Pg 421] appears as the name of the Messiah, but as that of
Jerusalem in the Messianic time. In vain are all the attempts which
have been made to set aside this troublesome argument. They only serve
to show, that it cannot be invalidated. _Le Moyne_, "in order that no
way of escape may be left to the enemies," brings forward, p. 298 ff.,
five different expedients among which the reader may choose. But their
very difference is a plain sign of arbitrariness; and that appears
still more clearly, when we begin to examine them individually. Several
interpreters assume an _enallage generis_ [Hebrew: lh] = [Hebrew: lv],
"and thus shall they call _him_." _Le Moyne_ thinks that we need have
no difficulty in assuming such an _enallage_. Others explain: "And he
who shall call, _i.e._, invite her, is Jehovah our righteousness." A
simple reference to the passage before us is decisive against it; the
parallelism of the two passages is too close to admit of [Hebrew: iqra]
in the second passage being understood in a sense altogether different.
By the same argument, the explanations by _Hottinger_ (Thesaur.
Philolog. p. 17l), and _Dassov_: "This shall come to pass when the Lord,
the Lord our righteousness, shall call her," are also refuted, quite
apart from the consideration, that [Hebrew: awr] cannot by any means
signify _when_. The most recent defender of the old orthodox view,
_Schmieder_, cuts the knot by simply severing our passage from chap.
xxxiii. 16-3. The ancient explanation, which refers [Hebrew: cdqnv],
"our righteousness," to the remission of sins, does not even correctly
understand this word. It is true that the remission of sins is often
represented as one of the chief blessings of the Messianic time; but
here it is out of place. According to the context, it is actual
justification, _i.e._, salvation according to another mode of viewing
it, which is here spoken of (compare remarks on Mal. iii. 20).
Righteousness in this sense implies, of course, the forgiveness of
sins; but, besides, the righteousness of life is comprehended in it.
Righteousness stands here in parallelism with salvation, and the order
and progress is this: righteousness of the king, righteousness of the
subjects, then salvation and righteousness as a reward from God, To
this argument may still be added the contrast to the former time.
Connected with the unrighteousness of the kings was that of the people;
and hence it was that the country was deprived of salvation, and
smitten by the divine judgments. That [Pg 422] which Jeremiah
comprehends in the name _Jehovah Zidkenu_, Ezekiel, in the parallel
passage, chap. xxxiv. 25-31, farther carries out and expands. The Lord
enters into a covenant of peace with them; rich blessing is bestowed
upon them; He breaks their yoke and delivers them from servitude; they
do not become a prey to the Gentiles.--_Schmieder_ has objected, that
the name would be without meaning for the promised King, unless the
name Jehovah belonged to him. But the King, by being called _Jehovah
Zidkenu_, is designated as the channel, through which the divine
blessings flow upon the Church, as the Mediator of Salvation, as the
Saviour. We must not, however, omit to remark that this ancient
explanation was wrong only in endeavouring to draw out from the word
that which, no doubt, is contained in the matter itself No one born of
a woman is _righteous_, in the full sense of the word; and if there be
anything wanting in the personal righteousness of the King, the
working of justice and righteousness, too, will at once be deficient;
and salvation and righteousness are not granted in their full extent
from above. To no one among all the former kings did the attribute
[Hebrew: cdiq] belong in a higher degree than to David; and yet in how
imperfect a degree did even he possess it! The calamity which, by this
imperfection, was inflicted upon the people, is, _e.g._, seen in the
numbering of the people. And it was not only the _will_ to work justice
and righteousness which was imperfect, but the power also was
imperfect, and the knowledge limited. He only who truly rules as a
king, and is truly wise (compare the words [Hebrew: vmlK mlK vhwkil])
can come up to, and realize the idea, after which David was striving in
vain. All the three offices of Christ, the royal no less than the
prophetic and priestly, imply His divinity; and the conviction that, in
the way hitherto pursued, nothing was to be effected; that it was only
by the divine entering into the earthly, that such splendid promises
could be fulfilled,--this conviction surely must have been plain to a
Jeremiah, whose fundamental sentiment is, "all flesh is grass," and who
lived at a time which, more than any other, was fitted to cure that
Pelagianism which always seeks to gather grapes from thorns. If then,
farther, we keep in mind that Jeremiah had before him the clear
announcements of the former prophets, as regards the divinity of the
Messiah (compare [Pg 423] remarks on Mic. v. 1; Is. ix. 5), we can
account for the fact, that he does not expressly speak of it, only
because it was not suitable in this context, in which only the fact
itself comes into consideration, but not the particular way.

Ver. 7. "_Wherefore, behold days come, saith the Lord, that they shall
no more say: As the Lord liveth who brought up the children of Israel
out of the land of Egypt_; ver. 8, but: _As the Lord liveth, who
brought up, and who led the seed of the house of Israel out of the
North country, and from all the countries whither I have driven them;
and they dwell in their land._"

The sense is this: The future prosperity and salvation shall by far
outshine the greatest deliverance and salvation of the Past. _Calvin_
remarks: "If the first deliverance be valued by itself, it will be
worthy of everlasting remembrance; but if it be compared with the
second deliverance, it will almost vanish;" compare, besides chap. xvi.
14, 15, where the verses now under consideration already occurred
almost _verbatim_ (Jeremiah is fond of such repetitions, which are any
thing but vain repetitions; and this fondness forms one of his
peculiarities); chap. iii. 16, where, in the same sense, it is said of
the Ark of the Covenant that it shall be forgotten in future; Is.
xliii. 18, 19, lxv. 17.--[Hebrew: Hi-ihvh] "living (is) Jehovah," for:
"As Jehovah liveth." It is quite natural that, when God is invoked as a
witness and judge, He should be designated as the _living one_; and it
is as natural that, on such an occasion, the greatest sign of life
which He gave should be pointed to. But that, under the Old Testament
dispensation, was the deliverance from Egypt, the strongest and most
impressive of all those deeds by which the delusion was dissipated,
that God was walking upon the vault of heaven, and did not judge
through the clouds. In future, a still stronger manifestation of life
is to take place. Hence the formula of the oath is altogether general;
the deliverance from Egypt comes into consideration as a manifestation
of life, and not as an act of grace. This was overlooked by _Calvin_
when he remarked: "Whensoever they saw themselves so oppressed, that
they did not see any other end to their evils than in the grace of God,
they said that the same God, who, in former times, had been the
deliverer of His people, was still living, and His power undiminished."

[Pg 424]




                           CHAP. XXXI. 31-40.


The 30th and 31st chapters may rightly be called the grand hymn of
Israel's deliverance. They are connected into one whole, not only a
material, but also by a formal unity; so that we must indeed wonder at
views such as those of _Venema_ and _Rosenmueller_, who assume that the
section is composed of fragments loosely connected, and written at
different times; but still more at the views of _Movers_ and _Hitzig_,
who assert that a whole number of strange interpolations had been
introduced into the text; compare _Kueper_, Jerem. S. 170 ff.

With respect to the time of the composition, we must not allow
ourselves to be deceived by the circumstance that, as a rule, Judah
appears no less that Israel, already far away from the land of the
Lord, in captivity. The Prophet, taking his stand in the time when the
catastrophe has already taken place, speaks from an ideal Present. The
fact that the destruction of Jerusalem was indeed imminent, and
immediately in view, but had not yet taken place, becomes probable even
from the inscriptions in chap. xxxii. and xxxiii., according to which
these two chapters, which are so closely related to the two before us,
belong to the tenth year of Zedekiah, when Jerusalem was besieged by
the Chaldeans. This is rendered certain by chap. xxx. 5-7, where the
final catastrophe upon the covenant-people, which belongs to the time
of Jeremiah, is represented as still impending. Hitherto the
threatening had prevailed in the predictions of the Prophet; but now,
in the view of their fulfilment, when the thunders of the judgment were
already heard from the heavens, the promise flows in full streams. The
false prophets had prophesied prosperity and salvation, at a time when,
to the human eye, there was no. cause for fear; but Jeremiah just steps
forth to announce salvation, at a time when all human hope had
vanished.

The Prophet begins, in chap. xxx., with the promise of salvation for
_all_ Israel; and after a detailed description, he comprehends and sums
it up, in ver. 22, in the words, brief but infinitely rich and
comprehensive: "And ye shall be my people [Pg 425] and I will be your
God."[1] The majestic close of the promise for the true Israel is, in
vers. 23, 24, formed by the threatening against those who are Israel in
appearance only,--analogous to the words of Isaiah: "There is no peace
to the wicked." Let them not, in their foolish delusion, seize the
promise for themselves. The time of the highest blessing for the godly,
and for those who are willing to become godly, the [Hebrew: ahrit
himiM]. will be for them, at the same time, a time of the highest
curse. The climax of the manifestation of grace has the climax of the
manifestation of justice as its inseparable companion. "Behold the
storm of the Lord, glowing fire, goeth forth, a _continuing_ storm, on
the head of the wicked it shall remain. The fierce anger of the Lord
shall not return, until He have done, and until He have performed the
intents of His heart; at the end of days ye shall consider it."
Formerly, in chap. xxiii. 19, 20, in a threatening prophecy which
referred to the exile, the Prophet had uttered the same words. By their
verbal repetition, he intimates that the matter was not by any means
settled with the exile; that the latter must not be considered as the
absolute and final punishment for the sins of the whole nation, but
that, as truly as God is Jehovah, so surely His words will revive, as
often as the circumstances again exist, to which they originally
referred.

[Pg 426]

The more specific the consolation is, the more impressive is it, and
the more does it reach the heart. After having announced salvation,
therefore, to _all_ Israel, the Prophet now proceeds to the consolation
for the two divisions of Israel. He begins with Israel in the
restricted sense--the ten tribes (chap. xxxi. 1-22), and with them he
continues longest, because, when looking to the outward appearance,
they seemed to be lost beyond all hope of recovery, to be for ever
rejected by the Lord. The thought, that we have here an original and
independent announcement of salvation for Israel, is set aside even by
the relation of ver. 1 to ver. 22 of the preceding chapter. For it is
to this verse that the Prophet immediately connects his discourse;
vers. 23 and 24 are only a parenthetical remark, an _Odi profanum
vulgus et arceo_, addressed to those to whom the promise did not
belong. Upon the words: "You shall be my people, and I will be your
God," follow in an inverted order, the words: "At that time, saith the
Lord, I will (specially) be the God of all the families of Israel, and
they shall be my people." Rachel, the mother of Joseph and Benjamin,
weeping over her sons, vers. 15-17, is so much the more suited to
represent Israel, that the tribe of Benjamin also, as to its principal
portion, belonged to the kingdom of the ten tribes; compare my
commentary on Ps. lxxx. Upon Israel there follows, in vers. 23-26,
Judah. The announcement closes in ver. 26 with the words so often
misunderstood: "Upon this I awaked, and I beheld, and my sleep was
sweet unto me." The Prophet has lost sight of the Present; like a
sleeping man, he is not susceptible of its impressions, compare remarks
on Zech. iv. 1. Then he awakes for a moment from his sweet dream (an
allusion to Prov. iii. 24), which, however, is not, like ordinary
dreams, without foundation. He looks around; every thing is dark,
dreary, and cold; nowhere is there consolation for the weary soul.
"Ah," he exclaims, "I have sweetly dreamed,"--and immediately the hand
of the Lord again seizes him, and carries him away from the scenes of
the Present.

There is not by any means a different salvation destined for Israel and
Judah; it is one salvation to be partaken of by both, who are in future
to be re-united into one covenant-people, into a nation of brethren.
From the parts, therefore, [Pg 427] the description returns, in vers.
27-40, to the whole from which it had proceeded, and is thus completely
rounded off, especially by the circumstance that, just in this close,
there is contained the crown of the promises, the substance and centre
of the declaration recurring here in ver. 33: "And I will be their God,
and they shall be my people."

The whole description in both chapters is Messianic; and after what we
have already had frequent occasion to remark, no farther proof is
necessary to show how inadmissible is a proceeding like that of
_Venema_, who cuts it all up into small pieces, and here assumes an
exclusive reference to the return from the captivity; there, to the
Maccabees, whom he almost raises to Saviours; in another place, to
Christ and His Kingdom. We ought therefore, indeed, to give an
exposition of the whole section; but, for external reasons, we are
obliged to limit ourselves to an exposition of the principal portion,
chap. xxxi. 31-40.

It is chap. xxxi. 22 only which we shall briefly explain, because that
passage was, in former times, understood by many interpreters to
contain a personal Messianic prophecy. "_How long wilt thou turn aside,
O thou apostate daughter? for the Lord createth a new thing in the
land, woman shall compass about man._" The last words of the verse are,
by the ancient interpreters, commonly explained as referring to
Christ's birth by a virgin. Thus, _e.g._, _Cocceius_: "It could not be
said more distinctly, at least not without ceasing to be enigmatical,
unless he had said that a virgin has born Christ the Son of God." But
quite apart from other arguments, this explanation is opposed by the
obvious consideration, in that case, just that would here be stated
which, in the birth of Christ by a virgin, is _not_ peculiar. For
[Hebrew: gbr] and [Hebrew: nqbh] are a designation of the sex; the fact
that the woman brings forth the man (since [Hebrew: gbr] is asserted to
designate _proles mascula_), is something altogether common; but the
important feature is wanting, that the woman is to be a virgin, and the
man, the Son of God. But certainly not a whit better than this
explanation is that which modern interpreters (_Schnurrer_, _Gesenius_,
_Rosenmueller_, _Maurer_), have advanced in its stead: "The woman shall
protect the man, shall perform for him the _munus excubitoris
circumeuntis_." This, surely, is a "_ridiculus_ [Pg 428] _mus_"--an
argument quite unique. We must fully agree with _Schnurrer_, who
remarks: "This, surely, is something new, uncommon, unheard of;" but
not every thing _new_ is, for that reason, suitable for furnishing an
effectual motive for conversion. The sense at which _Ewald_ arrives: "A
woman transforming herself into a man," is surely not worthy of being
entertained at the expense of a change in the reading. The correct view
is the following:--The Prophet founds his exhortation to return to the
Lord upon the most effectual argument possible, viz., upon the fact
that the Lord was to return to them, that the time of wrath was now
over, that they might hasten back into the open arms of God's love.
Without hope of mercy, there cannot be a conversion. The perverse and
desponding heart of man must, by His preventing love, be allured to
come to God. How important and valuable the "new thing" is which the
Lord is to create, the Prophet shows by the terms which he has
selected. It is just the _nomina sexus_ which here are suitable; the
omission of the article also is intentional. The relation is
represented in its general aspect; and thereby the look is more
steadily directed to its fundamental nature and substance. "Woman shall
compass about (Ps. xxxii. 7, 10) man;" the strong will again take the
weak and tender into His intimate communion, under His protection and
loving care. The woman art thou, O Israel, who hitherto hast
sufficiently experienced, what a woman is without the man, how she is a
reed exposed to, and a sport of, all winds. The man is the Lord. How
foolish would it be on thy part, if thou wert to persevere any longer
in thine independence and dissoluteness, and if thou didst refuse to
return into the sweet relation of dependence and unconditional
surrender, which alone, being the only natural relation, can be
productive of happiness! In favour of this explanation is also the
clear reference of [Hebrew: tsvbb] to [Hebrew: ttHmqiN], and to
[Hebrew: hwvbbh], which, in the case of the latter word, is even
outwardly expressed by the alliteration. How foolish would it be still
farther to _depart_, as now the time is at hand when the Lord is
approaching.--It is obvious that, even according to our interpretation,
the prophecy retains its Messianic character.

[Pg 429]

The contents of the section, vers. 31-40, are as follows:--The Lord is
far from punishing with entire rejection the contempt of His former
gifts and blessings. On the contrary, by increased grace, He will renew
the bond between Him and the people, and render it for ever
indissoluble. The foundation of this is formed by the remission of
sins, of which the richer outpouring of the Spirit is a consequence;
and it is now, when the Law no more comes to Israel as an outward
letter, but is written in their hearts, that Israel attain their
destination; they will truly be the people of God, and God will be
truly their God, vers. 31-34. To the people conscious of their guilt,
and still groaning under the judgments of God, such a manifestation of
God's continuous grace appears incredible; but God most emphatically
assures them, that this election is still in force, and must continue
for ever, as truly as He is God, vers. 31-37. The city of God shall
gloriously arise out of its ashes. While formerly the unholy
abomination entered into her, the holy one, even into her innermost
parts, she _now_ shall extend her boundaries beyond the territory of
the unholy; and the Lord, who is sanctified _within_ her, will sanctify
himself _upon_ her also. There shall be no more destruction.


                           * * * * * * * * * *


Ver. 31. "_Behold, days come, saith the Lord, and I make a new covenant
with the house of Israel, and with the house of Judah._"

Ver. 32. "_Not as the covenant that I made with their fathers, in the
day that I took them by the hand to bring them out of the land of
Egypt, which my covenant they brake; but I marry them to me, saith the
Lord._"

The first question which we have here to examine is: What is to be
understood by the making of a covenant? We cannot here think of a
formal transaction, of a mutual contract, such as the covenant made
on Sinai. This appears from ver. 32, according to which the old
covenant was concluded on the day when the Lord took Israel by
the hand, in order to bring them out of Egypt; but at that time a
covenant-transaction proper was not yet mentioned. Most interpreters
erroneously suppose that by the words: "In the day," &c., the abode at
Sinai is [Pg 430] designated. But since the _day_ of the deliverance
from Egypt is commonly thus spoken of (comp. Exod. xii. 51 ff.); since
this _day_ was, as such, marked out by the annually returning feast of
the Passover, we must, here also, take [Hebrew: ivM], "day," in its
proper sense. And there is the less reason for abandoning this most
obvious sense that, in Exod. vi. 4; Ezek. xvi. 8; Hag. ii. 5, a
covenant with Israel is spoken of, which was not first concluded on
Sinai, but was already concluded when they went out from Egypt.
_Farther_--No obligation is spoken of in reference to the new covenant;
blessing and gifts are mentioned, and nothing but these. But are we to
adopt the opinion of _Frischmuth_ (_de foedere nov._ in the _Thes.
Ant._ i. p. 857), and of many other interpreters and lexicographers,
and say that [Hebrew: brit] "does not only signify a covenant entered
upon by two or several parties, but also [Greek: prothesin],
_propositum Dei_, [Greek: epangelias], His gratuitous and unconditional
promises, as well as His constant ordinances?" That might after all be
objectionable. [Hebrew: krt brit] cannot _signify_ any thing but to
make a covenant.[2] But the question is, whether the making of a
covenant cannot be spoken of in passages, where there is no mention of
transactions of a mutual agreement between two parties. The substance
of the covenant evidently precedes the outward conclusion of the
covenant, and forms the foundation of it. The conclusion of the
covenant does not first form the relation, but is merely a solemn
acknowledgment of the relation already existing. Thus it is ever in
human relations; the contract, as a rule, only fixes and settles
outwardly, a relation already existing. And that is still more the case
in the relation between God and man. By every benefit from God, an
obligation is imposed upon him who receives it, whether it may, in
express words, have been stated by God, and have been outwardly
acknowledged by the recipient or not. This is clearly seen in the case
under consideration. At the giving of the Law on Sinai, the obligatory
power of the commandments of [Pg 431] God is founded upon the fact,
that God brought Israel out of the land of Egypt, the house of bondage.
Hence, it appears that the Sinaitic covenant existed, in substance,
from the moment that the Lord led Israel out of Egypt. By apostatizing
from the Lord, the people would have broken the covenant, even if it
had not been solemnly confirmed on Sinai; just as their apostacy, in
the time between their going out and the transactions on Sinai, was
treated as a violation of the covenant. It would have been a breach of
the covenant, if the people had answered, in the negative, the solemn
questions of God, whether they would enter into a covenant with Him.
This appears so much the more clearly, when we keep in mind, that the
New Covenant was not at all sanctioned by such an external solemn act.
But if, nevertheless, it is a covenant in the strictest sense; if,
here, the relation is independent upon its acknowledgment,--then, under
the Old Testament too, this acknowledgment must be a secondary element.
The same is the case with all the other passages commonly quoted in
proof, that [Hebrew: krt brit] may also be used of mere blessings and
promises. Thus, _e.g._, Gen. ix. 9: "Behold, I establish my covenant
with you, and with your seed after you." That which is here designated
as a covenant is not the promise _per se_, that in future the course of
nature should, on the whole, remain undisturbed, but in so far only, as
it imposes upon them who receive it, the obligation to glorify, by
their walk, the Lord of the order of nature. In part, this obligation
is afterwards outwardly fixed in the commandments concerning murder,
eating of blood, &c. Gen. xv. 18: "In the same day God made a covenant
with Abraham, saying: Unto thy seed I give this land." In what
precedes, a promise only is contained; but this promise itself is, at
the same time, an obligation; and this obligation existed even then,
although it was at a later period only, solemnly undertaken by
receiving the sign of the covenant, circumcision. Exod. xxxiv. 10: "And
He said: Behold I make a covenant; before all thy people I will do
marvels such as have not been done in all the earth, nor in any nation;
and all the people among whom thou art, shall see the work of the Lord;
for it is a terrible thing that I will do with thee." The covenant on
Sinai is here already made; the making of the new covenant here spoken
of consists [Pg 432] in the mercies by which God will manifest himself
to His people as their God. Every one of these mercies involves a new
obligation for the people; every one is a question in deeds: This I do
to thee, what doest thou to me?--It will now be possible to determine
in what sense the Old Covenant is here contrasted with the New, The
point in question cannot be a new and more perfect revelation of the
Law of God; for that is common to both the dispensations. No jot or
tittle of it can be lost under the New Testament, and as little can a
jot or tittle be added. God's law is based on His nature, and that is
eternal and unchangeable, compare Mal. iii. 22 (iv. 4). The revelation
of the Law does not belong to the going out from Egypt, to which the
making of the former covenant is here attributed, but to Sinai. As
little can the discourse be of the introduction of an entirely new
relation, which is not founded at all upon the former one. On this
subject, _David Kimchi's_ remark is quite pertinent: "It will not be
the newness of the covenant, but its stability." The covenant with
Israel is an everlasting covenant. Jehovah would not be Jehovah, if an
entirely new commencement could take place; [Greek: lego de]--so the
Apostle writes in Rom. xv. 8--[Greek: Iesoun Christon diakonon
gegenesthai peritomes huper aletheias theou eis to bebaiosai tas
epangelias ton pateron. ta de ethne huper eleous doxasai ton theon].
The sending of Christ with His gifts and blessings, the making of the
New Covenant, is thus the consequence of the covenant-faithfulness of
God. If then the Old and New Covenants are here contrasted, the former
cannot designate the relation of God to Israel _per se_, and in its
whole extent, but it must rather designate the former mode only, in
which this relation was manifested,--that whereby the Lord had, up to
the time of the Prophet, manifested himself as the God of Israel. With
this former imperfect form, the future more perfect form is here
contrasted, under the name of the New Covenant. The New Covenant which
is to take the place of the Old, when looking to the form (comp. Heb.
viii. 13: [Greek: en to legein. Kainen, pepalaioke ten proten. to de
palaioumenon kai geraskon, engus aphanismou]), is, in substance, the
realization of the Old. These remarks are in perfect harmony with that
which was formerly said concerning the meaning of [Hebrew: krt brit].
We saw that this expression does not designate an act only once done,
[Pg 433] by which a covenant is solemnly sanctioned, but rather that it
is used of every action, by which a covenant-relation is instituted or
confirmed.--If, then, the Old Covenant is the former form of the
covenant with Israel; and the New Covenant the future form of it,
another question is:--Which among the manifold differences of those two
forms are here specially regarded by the Prophet? The answer to this
question is supplied by that which the Prophet declares concerning the
New Covenant. For since it is _not_ to be like the former covenant, the
excellences of the New must be as many defects of the Old. These
excellences, however, are all of a spiritual nature,--first, the
forgiveness of sins, and then the writing of the Law in the heart.
It follows from this, that the blessings of the Old Covenant were
_pre-eminently_ (for we shall afterwards see that an entire absence of
these spiritual blessings cannot be spoken of, and that the difference
between the Old and the New Covenant is, in this respect, a relative
one only, not an absolute one) of an external nature; and this is also
suggested by the circumstance, that it is represented as being
concluded when the people were led out of Egypt; in which fact, all the
later similar deliverances and blessings are comprehended. The Prophet,
if any one, had learned that, in the way hitherto pursued, they could
not successfully continue. The sinfulness of the people had, at his
time, manifested itself in such fearful outbreaks, that, even when
looking at the matter from a human point of view, he could not but feel
most deeply that, with outward blessings and gifts, with an outward
deliverance from servitude, the people were very little benefited. What
is the use of a mercy which, according to divine necessity, must be
immediately followed by a punishment so much the more severe? The
necessary condition for the true and lasting bestowal of outward
salvation, is the bestowal of the internal salvation; without the
latter the former is only a mockery. It is this internal salvation,
therefore, which is the highest aim of the Prophet's longings; to it he
here points as the highest blessing of the Future; compare also chap.
xxxii. 40: "And I make an everlasting covenant with them, and I will no
more turn away from them to do them good, and I will put my fear in
their hearts that they shall not depart from me."--The closing words of
ver. 32 are frequently misunderstood. [Pg 434] The erroneous
interpretation of [Hebrew: awr] by "_quia_," which is found with most
expositors, is of less consequence. [Hebrew: awr] indicates, in
general, the connection with what precedes. We may explain it either
by: "which my covenant they brake," as is done by _Ewald_; or, "since
(Deut. iii. 24) they brake my covenant," in which latter case, [Hebrew:
awr] refers at the same time to "I marry them unto me." We have here
farther carried out and detailed that which previously was said of the
making of a new covenant; and the sense is: Although they have broken
my former covenant, yet I marry them unto me, or make a new covenant
with them. Of greater importance is the difference in the
interpretation of [Hebrew: belti]. By far the greater number of
interpreters understand this _sensu malo_; the ancient interpreters in
doing so refer to the words [Greek: kago emelesa auton], (Heb. viii.
9); but these can scarcely prove anything. For the author of that
epistle, whose sole object it is to show that the new covenant stands
higher than the old--the insufficiency of the latter was, as the
Prophet's expressions show, sufficiently felt even by those who lived
under it--has, in these words, which do not stand in any relation to
the object which he has in view, followed the LXX. But it is a rather
doubtful and suspicious circumstance that, in determining the sense,
these interpreters greatly vary. Some, referring to the Arabic, explain
[Hebrew: bel] by "_fastidire_;" others, as they allege, from the Hebrew
_usus loquendi_, by "to tyrannize." Thus, _e.g._ _Buddeus_ (_de
praerogat. fidelium N. T._ in the Miscell. p. 106): "We may readily
understand thereby every severe chastisement by the neighbouring
nations, such as frequently happened: they did not remain in my
covenant, therefore I made them to bear the yoke of others, [Greek:
emelesa auton], _neglexi eos_." But we have already seen (comp. remarks
on chap. iii. 14), that for neither of these significations is there
any foundation; and this has been felt by those also who, in order to
bring out a bad signification, such as, according to their view, the
text requires, undertook to change the reading, as _e.g._ _Cappellus_,
who would read [Hebrew: gelti], and _Grotius_, who would read [Hebrew:
bhlti].[3] The signification "to betroth onesself," "to [Pg 435] take
in marriage," which in that passage we vindicated for [Hebrew: bel]
with [Hebrew: b], is, here too, quite applicable; comp. Jer. ii. 1.
This signification the Chaldee Paraphrast too seems to have had in
view; for he translates [Hebrew: atreiti] "_cupio vos_," "_delector
vobis_." And is there anything to indicate, that here the reason is to
be stated, why the old covenant is abolished? That reason can be
brought in only by very forced explanations (comp. _e.g._ _Maurer_ and
_Hitzig_); and it is, moreover, sufficiently expressed, as the author
of the Epistle to the Hebrews has shown. Even in the announcement of a
_new_ covenant, the declaration is implied that the old covenant was
insufficient: [Greek: ei gar he prote ekeine en amemptos, ouk an
deuteras ezeteito topos] (Heb. viii. 7), as well as the reason why it
was so, viz., on account of human sinfulness and hardness of heart,
which are not helped and remedied by pre-eminently outward blessings
and benefits, be they never so great. This their former greatness is
indicated by the words: "When I took them by the hand,"--words which
imply the most tender love. To this subjective cause of the
insufficiency of the old covenant there is a reference in the words:
[Greek: memphomenos gar autois legei], in Heb. viii. 8, which by _De
Wette_ and _Bleek_ are erroneously translated: "For reprovingly He says
to them." The Dative [Greek: autois] belongs to [Greek: memphomenos]
(comp. _Mathiae_, S. 705); if it were otherwise it would be redundant,
and would the less be in its place, that the discourse is not addressed
to the children of Israel. The reason why a better covenant was
required, such a one [Greek: hetis epi kreittosin epangeliais
nenomothetetai], Heb. viii. 6, appears sufficiently from that which, in
vers. 33, 34, is said of this new covenant in contrast to the old.
Here, however, it is rather the infinite love of God, the greatness of
His covenant-faithfulness which are pointed out; and this thought is,
from among all others, best suited to the context. [Hebrew: hmh] and
[Hebrew: anki] form an emphatic contrast. _They_, in wicked
ingratitude, have broken the former covenant, have shaken off the
obligations [Pg 436] which God's former mercies imposed upon them. God
too--so it might be expected--ought now to annul the old covenant, and
for ever withdraw from them the old mercies. But, instead of doing so,
He grants the new covenant, the greater mercy. He anew takes in
marriage apostate Israel, and in such a manner that now the bond of
love becomes firm and indestructible. _Bleek_ objects to our
interpretation: "The object is not the city of Jerusalem, or even the
Congregation of Israel, but the single Israelites, who may indeed be
designated as the children of Jehovah, but not as His spouse." But, in
such personifications, it is quite a common thing that the real
plurality should take the place of the ideal unity. In Exod. xxxiv.
15, for instance, it is said: "And they go a whoring after their
gods,"--instead of the congregation, to which the _whoring_ properly
belongs, (comp. Is. lvii. 7), the individual members are mentioned;
comp. Hos. ii. 1, 2 (i. 10, ii. 19).

Ver. 33. "_For this is the covenant that I will make with the house of
Israel after these days, saith the Lord: I give my law in their inward
parts, and will write it in their hearts; and I will be their God, and
they shall be my people._"

[Hebrew: ki] is, by some interpreters, here supposed to mean "but;" so
much, only, however, is correct that "but" might _also_ have been put;
_for_ is here quite in its place. The words: "Not as the covenant,"
&c., in the preceding verse, are here vindicated, and expanded by a
positive definition of the nature and substance of the New Covenant. It
is just because it is of such a nature, that it is not like the former
covenant. [Hebrew: hhM] does not, by any means, as is erroneously
supposed by _Venema_ and _Hitzig_, refer to the days mentioned in ver.
31, in which the New Covenant was to be made. "These days," on the
contrary, are a designation of the Present; "after these days,"
equivalent to [Hebrew: bahrit himiM] "at the end of days." The Prophet
so repeatedly and emphatically points to the Future, because unbelief
and weak faith imagined that, with the Present, the history of the
covenant-people was finished, and that no Future was in store for them.
_Calvin_ pertinently remarks: "It is just as if the Prophet had said,
that the grace of which he was prophesying could not be apprehended,
unless they, believers, kept their minds composed, and patiently waited
until the [Pg 437] time of the promised salvation had come." As regards
the following enumeration of the blessings, in and by the bestowal of
which the new covenant-relation is to be established, _Venema_ very
correctly remarks: "The blessings are distinguished into radical or
causal ones, and subsequent or derived ones." The second [Hebrew: ki],
in ver. 34: "_For_ I will forgive their sin," proves the correctness of
this division, which is also pointed out by the _Athnach_.--[Hebrew:
tvrh] is, by many interpreters, here understood to signify "doctrine."
Thus _Buddeus_: "By the word [Hebrew: tvrh], the whole New Testament
doctrine is to be understood." This interpretation, however, is
objectionable, and destructive of the sense, [Hebrew: tvrh] never means
"doctrine," but always "law;" and the fact that it is only _the_ law of
God, the eternal expression of His nature, and common, therefore, to
both the Old and New Covenants, which can be here spoken of, and not a
new constitution for the latter, is seen from the reference in which
the giving in the inward parts and the writing on the heart (the tables
of the heart, 2 Cor. iii. 3), stands to the outward communication and
the writing on the tables of stone on Sinai. The law is the same; the
relation only is different in which God places it to man, ("_lex cum
homine conciliatur quasi_," _Michaelis_.) One might easily infer from
the passage before us a confirmation of the error, that the law under
the Old Covenant was _only_ an outward dead letter. Against this error
_Buddeus_ already contended, who, S. 117, acknowledges that it is a
relative difference and contrast only, which are here spoken of He
says: "This, of course, was the case with the Old Testament believers
also; here, however, God promises a richer fulness and higher degree of
this blessing." _Calvin_ declares the opinion that, under the Old
Testament dispensation, there did not exist any regeneration, to be
absurd, and says: "we know that, under the Law, the grace of God was
rare and dark; but that, under the Gospel, the gifts of the Spirit were
_poured_ out, and that God dealt much more liberally with His Church."
The idea of a purely outward giving of the Law is indeed one which is
quite inconceivable. God would, in that case, have done nothing else
towards Israel than He did to the traitor Judas, in whose conscience He
proclaimed His holy Law, without communicating to him strength for
repentance. But such a proceeding can be conceived of, only where there
is a subjective impossibility [Pg 438] of [Greek: anakainizein eis
metanoian]. Every outward manifestation of God _must_, according to the
constitution of human nature, be accompanied by the inward
manifestation, since it is inconceivable that He who knows our nature,
should mock us by the semblance of a blessing. As soon as we know the
outward fact of the deliverance from Egypt, we know, at the same time,
that God has then powerfully touched the heart of Israel. As soon as it
is established that the Law on Sinai was written on tables of stone by
the finger of God, it is also established that He, at the same time,
wrote it on the tables of Israel's heart. But that which is thus
implied in the matter itself, is confirmed by the testimony of history.
In the Law itself, circumcision is designated as the pledge and seal of
the bestowal, not merely of outward blessings, but of the circumcision
of the heart, of the removal of sin attaching to every one by birth; so
that man can love God with all his heart, all his sold, and all his
powers, Deut. xxx. 6. This circumcision of the heart which, in the
outward circumcision, was at the same time _required_ and promised by
God (comp. Deut. l. c. with x. 16), is not substantially different from
the writing of the Law on the heart. _Farther_--If the Law of the Lord
had, for Israel, been a mere outward letter, how could the animated
praise of it in the Holy Scriptures, _e.g._, in Ps. xix., be accounted
for? Surely, a bridge must already have been formed between the Law and
him who can speak of it as rejoicing the heart, as enlightening the
eyes, as converting the soul, as sweeter than honey and the honeycomb.
That is no more the Law in its isolation which worketh wrath, but it is
the Law in its connection with the Spirit, whose commandments are not
grievous; comp. my commentary on Ps. xix. 8 ff. A _new_ heart was
created under the Old Testament also, Ps. li. 12; and not to know the
nature of this creation was, for a teacher in Israel, the highest
disgrace, John iii. 10. Yea, that which is here promised for the
Future, a pious member of the Old Covenant expresses, in Ps. xl. 9, _in
the same form_, as being already granted to him as his present
spiritual condition: "I delight to do thy will, O my God, and thy Law
is in the midst of my bowels,"--words which imply the same contrast to
the Law as outward letter, as being written on tables of stone, comp.
Prov. iii. 1-3: "My son, [Pg 439] forget not my law, and let thine
heart keep my commandments ... bind them about thy neck, write them
upon the table of thine heart;" compare my commentary on Psalms, Vol.
iii. p. lxvii.--But how is it to be explained that the contrariety
which, in itself, is relative, appears here under the form of the
absolute contrariety,--the difference in degree, as a difference in
kind? Evidently in the same manner as the same phenomenon must be
explained elsewhere also, _e.g._ John i. 17, where it is said that the
Law was given by Moses, but mercy and truth by Christ. By overlooking
this fact, so many errors have been called forth. The blessings of the
Old Covenant which, when considered in themselves, are so important and
rich, appear, when compared with the much fuller and more important
blessings of the New Covenant, to be so trifling that they vanish
entirely out of sight. It is quite similar when, in chap. iii. 16, the
Prophet represents the highest sanctuary of the Old Covenant, the Ark
of the Covenant, as sinking into entire oblivion in future; when, in
chap. xxiii. 7, 8, he describes the deliverance from Egypt as no longer
worthy of being mentioned. Parallel to the passage under consideration
is the promise of Joel of the pouring out of the Spirit, chap. iii. 1,
2 (ii. 28, 29); so that that which we remarked on that passage, is
applicable here also. But, in that passage, the relative nature of the
promise appears more clearly than it does here, just because, in
general, under the New Covenant, in its relation to the Old, there is
nowhere an absolutely new beginning, but always a completion only (just
in the same manner as, on the other hand, under the New Covenant
itself, it is in the relation of the _regnum gloriae_ to the _regnum
gratiae_). Joel, in reference to the communication of the Spirit, puts
the abundance in the place of the scarcity; the many in the place of
the few. Compare, moreover, chap. xxiv. 7: "And I give them a heart to
know me, that I am the Lord; and they shall be my people, and I will be
their God;" xxxii. 39: "And I give them one heart and one way, that
they may fear me for ever, for the good of them and of their children
after them;" but especially Ezek. xi. 19, 20, xxxvi. 26, 27.--The
remarks of Jewish interpreters on the passage under consideration, in
which they cannot avoid seeing that, in it, a purely moral revelation
is prophesied, [Pg 440] in contrast to a mere external one, clearly
show how strongly the Old Testament is opposed to that carnal Jewish
delusion of the condition of the Messianic Kingdom (as it is most
glaringly expressed in the Talmudic passage _Massechet Sanhedrim_, fol.
119: "There is no other difference between the days of the Messiah and
the present state of things, excepting only that the kingdoms shall be
our slaves),"--a delusion which is quite analogous to the expectations
which are entertained by revolutionists concerning the Future, and
which flow from the same source. Thus Rabbi _Bechai_ (see _Frischmuth_)
remarks: "This means that every evil concupiscence shall be taken away,
and every desire to covet any thing;" _Moses Nachmanides_ (_ibid._ S.
861): "And this is nothing else than that every evil concupiscence
shall be taken away, so that the heart, by an internal impulse, does
what is right.--In the days of Messiah there will not exist any
evil desire, but, from the impulse of his nature, man will do what
is right. And there will, therefore, not be innocence and guilt,
inasmuch as these depend upon concupiscence." But if once bent upon it,
pre-conceived opinions will overcome every, even the strongest,
contradiction offered by the matter itself This may be seen from the
example of _Grotius_, who here explains: "I will cause that all of
them keep my Law in memory,--in the first instance, by the multitude
of synagogues which, at that time, were built, and in which the
Law was taught thrice a-week." Thrice a-week! Surely that will produce
first-rate men, viz., such as are described in Isa. lviii. 2. It is not
without meaning, that the words: "And I will be their God," &c., follow
upon: "And I give my Law in their inward parts," &c. The Law is the
expression of God's nature; it is only by the Law being written in the
heart that man can become a partaker of God's nature; that His name can
be sanctified in him. And it is this participation in the nature of
God, this sanctification of God's name, which forms the foundation of:
"I will be their God, and they shall be my people." Without this, the
relation cannot exist at all, as truly as God is not an idol, but the
True and Holy One. These words express, as _Buddeus_, S. 94, rightly
remarks: "That He will impart himself altogether to them." But how were
it possible that God, with His blessings and gifts, should [Pg 441]
impart himself entirely and unconditionally to them who are not of His
nature? Of all unnatural things, this would be the most unnatural.
Here, however, likewise the relative character of the promise most
clearly appears. As early as to Abraham, God had promised that He would
be a God to _him_, and to his seed after him; and this promise he had
afterwards repeated to the whole people, Lev. xxvi. 12, comp. Exod.
xxix. 45: "And I dwell in the midst of the children of Israel and will
be their God." In the consciousness that this promise was fulfilled in
the time then present, David exclaims in Ps. xxxiii. 12: "Blessed is
the nation whose God is Jehovah, the generation whom He hath chosen for
His inheritance." Hence, here too, there is nothing absolutely new. If
such were the subject of discourse, then the whole Kingdom of God under
the Old Testament dispensation would be changed into a mere semblance
and illusion. But the small measure of the condition--with which even
God himself cannot dispense, but of which He may vouchsafe a larger
measure, viz., the writing of the Law in the heart, whereby man becomes
a copy of God, the personal Law--was necessarily accompanied by the
small measure of the consequence, The perfect fulfilment of God's
promise to Abraham and Israel, to which the prophet here alludes,
could, therefore, be expected from the future only.

Ver. 34. "_And they shall teach no more a man his neighbour, and a man
his brother, saying: Know the Lord; for they all shall know me, small
and great, saith the Lord; for I will forgive their iniquity, and I
will remember their sin no more._"

Even from ancient times, the first hemistich of the verse has created
great embarrassment to interpreters, from which very few of them, not
excepting even _Calvin_, manage to extricate themselves skilfully. The
declaration that, because all will be taught by God, human instruction
in things divine is to cease, has, at first sight, something fanatical
in it, and, indeed, was made use of by Anabaptists and other
enthusiasts in vindication of their delusion.[4] Many interpreters
attempt an evasion, [Pg 442] by referring the words to the future life;
thus _Theodoret_, _Augustine_, (_de Spirit. et lit._ c. 24) and _Este_,
who, in a manner almost _naive_, remarks: "This difficulty, it seems,
is very simply avoided by those who refer this promise to the future
world, where, no doubt, all care about teaching will cease." But the
matter is, indeed, not at all difficult. All that is necessary is to
keep in mind that human instruction is here excluded, in so far only as
it is opposed to divine instruction concerning God himself; that hence,
that which is here spoken of, is _mere_ human instruction, by which men
are trained and drilled in religion, just as in every other branch of
common knowledge,--a result of which is, that they may learn for ever
without ever coming to the knowledge of the truth. Such an instruction
may be productive of historical faith, of belief in human authority;
but it is just by this, that the nature of religion will be altogether
destroyed. Even the true God becomes an idol when He is not known
through himself, when He himself does not prepare the heart as a place
to dwell in. He is, and remains a mere idea that can impart no strength
in the struggle against sin which is a real power, and no comfort in
affliction. Now, such a condition was very frequent under the Old
Testament dispensation. The mass of the people possessed only a
knowledge of God, which was chiefly, although not exclusively, obtained
through human instrumentality. By the New Covenant, richer gifts of the
Spirit were to be bestowed, and along with them, the number of those
was to be increased who were to partake in them, just as Isaiah, in
chap. vii. 16, represents believers under the Old Testament as being
taught by the Lord, while in chap. liv. 13, in reference to the
Messianic time, he announces: "And all thy children shall be taught of
the Lord." Under the New Covenant, the antithesis of teaching by God,
and teaching by man, is to cease. The teachers do not teach in their
own strength, but as servants and instruments of the Lord. It is not
they who speak, Init the Holy Spirit in them. Those who are taught by
them hear the word that comes to them through men, not as man's word,
but as God's word; and they receive it, not because it satisfies their
limited human reason, but because the Spirit testifies that the Spirit
is truth. How this antithesis is done away with, and reconciled in a
higher unity, is, among other passages, [Pg 443] shown by 2 Cor. iii.
3: "You are an epistle of Christ ministered by us, written not with
ink, but with the Spirit of the living God." They are [Greek:
theodidaktoi], but through the ministry of the Apostle who, in so far
as he performs this service, is not different from God, but only a
conductor of His power, a channel through which the oil of the Holy
Spirit flows to the Church of God; compare remarks on Zech. iv. The
same is taught in 1 John ii. 20: [Greek: Kai humeis chrisma echete apo
tou hagiou, kai oidate panta. Ouk egrapsa humin, hoti ouk oidate ten
aletheian, all'hoti oidate auten.] Ver. 27: [Greek: Kai humeis to
chrisma, ho elabete ap'autou, en humin, menei kai ou chreian echete,
hina tis didaske humas, all'hos to auto chrisma didaskei humas peri
panton k. t. l.] The [Greek: didaskein] here signifies the human
teaching in contrast to that which is divine, such an one as undertakes
by its own power to work knowledge in him who is taught. Such a
teaching cannot take place under the new covenant. A fundamental
knowledge is already imparted to all its members; the [Greek:
parakletos], the Holy Ghost, alone teaches them, John xiv. 26; He leads
them into all truth, John xvi. 13. But, just because this is the case,
the teaching by means of those whom God has given, in His Church, as
apostles, prophets, evangelists, teachers (Eph. iv. 11), to whom He has
communicated His [Greek: charismata], is quite in its place. The
apostle writes just _because_ they know the truth. If it were
otherwise, his efforts would be altogether in vain. Of what use is it
to give instruction about colours to him who is blind? In things
divine, the truth becomes truth to the single individual, only because
his knowledge of God is founded on his being in God; and that can be
accomplished only by his being connected to God through God. Being,
life, and hence, also, real living knowledge, can proceed only from the
fountain of all being and life. But in the case of those who are in
God, who possess the fundamental knowledge, this knowledge must be
developed, carried on, and brought to full consciousness through the
instrumentality of those to whom God has granted the gifts for it. A
glance into the deep meaning of our passage was obtained by the author
of the book _Jelammedenu_, which is quoted by _Abarbanel_ (in
_Frischmuth_, S. 863); he says: "Under the present dispensation, Israel
learns the Law from mortal men, and therefore forgets it; for as flesh
and blood pass away (comp. [Pg 444] Matt. xvi. 17, where the antithesis
existing between a knowledge of divine things which rests on human
ground, and that which rests on divine ground, is brought before us in
its strictest form), so also its instruction passes away. But a time
shall come when a man shall not learn from the mouth of a man, but from
the mouth of the blessed God, for it is written: 'All thy children
shall be taught by God.'In these words, it is implied that hitherto
the knowledge of the Law was an artificial one obtained by mortal men.
But for that reason, it cannot stand long, for the effect stands in
proportion to its cause. At the time of the deliverance, however, the
knowledge of the Law will be obtained in a miraculous manner." It is,
however, quite obvious that this promise, too, must be understood
relatively only. All the pious men of the Old Covenant were [Greek:
theodidaktoi]; and under the New Covenant, the number of those is
infinitely great who, through their own guilt, stand to truth in a
relation which is entirely or preeminently mediate.--Instead of the
"small," by way of individualization, servants and handmaids are
mentioned in Joel iii. 2 (ii. 29); compare remarks on Rev. xi. 18.--We
have already seen that in the last words of the verse, the fundamental
blessing is promised. But whether [Hebrew: ki] be referred only to that
which immediately precedes, or to every thing which goes before
(_Venema_: _vocala_ [Hebrew: ki] _non ad proxime praecedentia
referenda, sed ad totam pericopam, qua bona foederis recensita sunt,
extenda_), amounts to nearly the same thing; for that which immediately
precedes includes all the rest. We have before us nothing but
designations of the same thing from various aspects; everything depends
upon the richer bestowal of the gifts of the Spirit. This has the
forgiveness of sins for its necessary foundation; for, before God can
give, He must first take. The sins which separate the people and their
God from one another, must first be taken away; it is then only that
the inward means can be bestowed, so that the people may become truly
God's people, and God's name may be sanctified in them. It is obvious
that, here too, a relative difference only between the Old and New
Covenant can be spoken of A covenant-people without forgiveness of sins
is no covenant-people; a God with whom there is not forgiveness, in
order that He may be feared, who does not heal the bones [Pg 445] which
He has broken, who in this respect gives promises for the Future only,
is no God, and no blessing. For if He does not grant this, He cannot
grant any thing else, inasmuch as every thing else implies this, and is
of no value without it. Forgiveness of sins is the essence of the
Passover as the feast of the covenant. On the Ark of the Covenant, it
was represented by the _Capporeth_ (see _Genuineness of the
Pentateuch_, Vol. ii., p. 525 f.). Without it the sin-offerings
appointed by God are a lie; without it, all that is untrue which God
says of himself as the covenant-God, that He is gracious and merciful,
Exod. xxxiv. 6. The holy Psalmists often acknowledge with praise and
thanks that God _has_ forgiven sins; comp. _e.g._ Ps. lxxxv. 3: "Thou
hast taken away the iniquities of thy people, thou hast covered all
their sins." In the same manner they are loud in praising the high
blessing bestowed upon the individual by the forgiveness of sins; comp.
Ps. xxxii. 51. The consciousness that their sins are forgiven, forms
the foundation of the disposition of heart which we perceive in the
Psalmists; see Commentary on the Psalms, Vol. iii. p. lxv. f. "What a
[Greek: plerophoria]"--so _Buddeus_ remarks, p. 109--"what a
confidence, what a joy of a tranquil and quiet conscience shines forth
in the psalms and prayers of David!" We have thus before us merely a
difference in degree. To the believers of that time, the sin of the
covenant-people appeared to be too great to admit of its being
forgiven. Driven away from the face of the Lord, so they imagined, it
would close its miserable existence in the land of Nod; never would the
[Greek: kairoi anapsuxeos] return. But, in opposition to such fears,
the Prophet declares, in the name of the Lord, that they would not only
return, but come, for the first time, in the true and full sense; that
where they imagined to behold the end to the forgiveness of sins, there
would be its real beginning; that where sin abounded, the grace of God
should there so much the more abound. Only, they should not despair,
and thus place a barrier in the way of God's mercy. Your God is not a
mere hard task-master; He himself will sow and then reap, as surely as
He is God, the gracious and merciful One.

Ver. 35. "_Thus saith the Lord, giving the sun for a light by day, and
the ordinances of the moon and of the stars for_ [Pg 446] _a light by
night, agitating the sea, and the waves thereof roar, the Lord of hosts
is His name._"

Ver. 36. "_If these ordinances will cease before me, saith the Lord,
then the seed of Israel also shall cease from being a nation before me
for ever._"

Interpreters commonly assume that, already in ver. 35, the discourse is
of the firm and immutable divine laws which every thing must obey. But
opposed to this view are the words: "Agitating the sea, and the waves
thereof roar," in which no definite perceptible rule, no uninterrupted
return takes place. To this argument may be added the comparison of the
fundamental passage, Isa. li. 15, in which the omnipotence only of God
is to be brought out: "And I am the Lord thy God, who agitates the sea,
and its waves roar, the Lord of hosts is His name;" comp. also Amos.
ix. 5, 6. It thus appears that, in ver. 35, God's omnipotence only is
spoken of, which establishes that He is God and not man; and this forms
the foundation for the declaration set forth in ver. 36, which is so
full of comfort for the despairing covenant-people,--the proposition,
namely, that, while all men are liars, He does not lie; that He can
never repent of His covenant and promises. The "ordinances" (moon and
stars are, in their regular return, themselves, as it were, embodied
ordinances), are mentioned already in ver. 35, because just the
circumstance that, according to eternal and inviolable laws, sun and
moon must appear every day at a fixed time, and have done so for
thousands and thousands of years, testifies more strongly for His
omnipotence and absolute power, never liable to any foreign influence
or interference, than if they at one time appeared, and, at another,
failed to appear. God's omnipotence, as it is testified by a look to
nature (_Calvin_: "The Prophet contents himself with pointing out what
even boys knew, viz., that the sun makes his daily circuit round the
whole earth, that the moon does the same, and that the stars in their
turn succeed, so that, as it were, the moon with the stars exercises
dominion by night, and, afterwards, the sun reigns by day"), results
from the fact that He is the pure, absolute, being (Jehovah His name,
comp. remarks on Mal. iii. 6); and it is just because He is this, that
His counsels, which He declared without any condition attached to them,
must be [Pg 447] unchangeable. To believe that He has for ever rejected
Israel, is to degrade Him, to make Him an idol, a creature.--In ver.
36, the immutability of God's counsel of grace is put on a level with
the immutability of God's order of nature; but this is done with a view
to the weakness of the people, who receive, for a pledge of their
election, that which is most firm among visible things; so that every
rising of the sun and moon is to them a guarantee of it; compare Ps.
lxxxix. 37, 38. But considered in itself, the counsels of God's grace
are _much firmer_ than the order of nature. The heavens wax old as a
garment, and as a vesture He changes them and they are changed (Ps.
cii. 27-29); heaven and earth shall pass away, but the word of God
shall not pass away.--From chap. xxxiii. 24: "They despise my people
([Hebrew: emi]) that they should be still a nation ([Hebrew: gvi])
before them" it appears why it is that [Hebrew: gvi] is here used, and
not [Hebrew: eM]. The covenant-people in their despair imagined that
their national existence, which, in the Present, was destroyed, was
gone for ever. If only their national existence was sure, then
also was their existence as a covenant-people. For, just as their
national existence had ceased, because they had ceased to be the
covenant-people, so they could again obtain a national existence as the
covenant-people only.

Ver. 37. "_Thus saith the Lord: If the heavens above be measured, and
the foundations of the earth beneath be searched out, I will also cast
off all the seed of Israel, for all that they have done, saith the
Lord._"

It is not without meaning that the Prophet so frequently repeats: Thus
saith the Lord. This formed the [Greek: A] and [Greek: O]; His word was
the _sole_ ground of hope for Israel. Apart from it, despair was as
reasonable, as now it was unreasonable. The measuring of heaven, and
the searching out of the innermost parts of the earth, come here into
consideration as things impossible. The words: "All the seed of
Israel," take from the hypocrites that consolation which they might be
disposed to draw from these promises. It is as much in opposition to
the nature of God that He should permit all the seed of Israel, the
faithful with the unbelievers, to perish, as that He should save all
the seed of Israel, unbelievers as well as believers. The promise, as
well as the threatening, always leaves a remnant. All that the covenant
grants is, that the whole cannot [Pg 448] perish (the discourse is
here, of course, of definite rejection); but it gives no security to
the individual sinner. The words: "For all that they have done," are
added intentionally, because the greatness of the sins of the people
was the _punctum saliens_ in the believers'despair of the mercy of
God. _Calvin_ says: "The Prophet here intentionally brings forward the
sins of the people, in order that we may know that the grace of God is
greater still, and that the multitude of so many wicked men would not
be an obstacle to God's granting pardon."

Ver. 38. "_Behold, days, saith the Lord, and the city is built to the
Lord from the tower of Hananeel unto the gate of the corner._ Ver. 39.
_And the measuring line goeth yet farther over against it, over the
hill Gareb_ (the leper), _and turneth towards Goah_ (place of
execution). Ver. 40. _And the whole valley of the carcasses and of the
ashes, and all the fields unto the brook of Kidron, and from thence
unto the horsegate, towards the East,_ (all this is) _holiness unto the
Lord. No more shall it be destroyed, nor shall it be laid waste for
ever._"

This prophecy embraces two features: _first_, the restoration of the
Kingdom of God, represented under the figure of a restoration of
Jerusalem, which, under the Old Covenant, was its seat and centre (it
is this aspect only which Zechariah, in resuming this prophecy, has
brought forward in chap. xiv. 10); and, _secondly_, the glorification
of the Kingdom of God, which now is so strengthened and increased, that
it can undertake to attack and assail the dark kingdom of evil, and
subject it to itself, while formerly it was attacked and assailed by
it, and often could not prevent the enemy from penetrating into the
innermost heart of its territory. This thought the Prophet graphically
clothes in a perceptible form, and in such a manner that he describes
how the unholy places, by which Jerusalem, the holy city, was
surrounded on all sides, are included in its circumference, and become
holiness unto the Lord. In former times, the victory of the world over
the Kingdom of God had been embodied in the fact, that the abominations
of sin and idolatry had penetrated into the very temple; compare chap.
vii. 11: "Is then this house, which is called by the name of the Lord,
a den of robbers, saith the Lord?" Other passages will be mentioned
when we come to comment upon Dan. ix. 27. This inward victory must,
according to divine necessity, [Pg 449] be followed by the outward one.
The covenant-people which, inwardly, had submitted to the world, which,
by its own guilt, had profaned itself, was, outwardly also, given up to
the world, and was profaned in punishment. And this profanation,
inflicted upon it as a punishment, again manifested itself just at that
place, where the profanation by the guilt had chiefly manifested
itself, viz., in the holy city, and in the holy temple. It is with a
view to the former manifestation of the victory of the world over the
Kingdom of God, that here the victory of the Kingdom of God over the
world is described; and the imagery is just simple imagery. To the
outward holiness of the city and of the temple, the outward unholiness
of the places around Jerusalem is opposed. While the victory of the
world over the Kingdom of God had been manifested by the profanation of
these places, the victory of the Kingdom of God now appears under the
image of the sanctification of these formerly unholy places. By what
means that great change had been brought about; by what means the
Kingdom of God, which now lay so powerlessly prostrate, should again
obtain powers which it had never before possessed; by what means the
servant was to be changed into a lord, it was unnecessary for the
Prophet here to point out; it had been already mentioned in vers.
32-34. The difference consists in this, that the New Covenant is not
like the Old, but that it first furnishes the right weapons by which
sin and the world can be overcome, viz., an infinitely richer measure
of the forgiveness of sins, of the graces of the Spirit.--We must still
premise a general remark concerning the determination of the boundaries
of the New Jerusalem here given, because this must guide us in
determining the single doubtful places which are here mentioned. The
correct view has been already given by _Vitringa_ in his Commentary on
Isaiah xxx. 33: "The Prophet promises to the returning ones the
restoration of the city of Jerusalem in its whole circumference; and he
describes it in this way, that he begins from the Eastern wall, passes
on thence, through the North side, to the West side, and thence, by the
South side, returns to the East." For the Prophet begins with the tower
of Hananeel which was situated at the East side of the town, near the
sheep-gate; compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 10. Thence he proceeds to [Pg
450] the corner-gate, which was situated in that corner where the North
and East met (compare l. c.), and hence comprehends the whole North
side. He closes with the horse-gate, of which he expressly states that
it was situated towards the East, and hence points out that he had
again arrived at the place from which he set out. We have thus gained a
firm foundation for determining those among the places mentioned, the
situation of which is, in itself, doubtful.--Let us now proceed to the
consideration of particulars. After [Hebrew: imiM], the _Keri_ inserts
[Hebrew: baiM]. It is true that this fuller expression is commonly used
by the Prophet; but, for that very reason, the more concise one is to
be preferred, which alone has the authority of the MSS. in its favour,
while the _Keri_ is nothing but a conjecture, perhaps not even that.
The full expression having already occurred so frequently in the
passage under consideration, the Prophet here, at the close, and for a
change, contents himself with the mere intimation. The Prophet says
intentionally: "The city is built to the Lord," so that "to the Lord"
must be connected with "is built;" not "the city of the Lord." The
latter expression had become so much a _nomen proprium_ of Jerusalem,
that the full depth of its meaning was no more thought of. This new
city is no more to be called simply the city of the Lord; it is truly
to be built to the Lord, so that it belongs to Him.--In the first two
points of the boundary, the tower of Hananeel and the Corner-gate, the
second main idea of the passage does not yet come out so prominently.
This is to be accounted for simply by the circumstance, that on the
whole North side of the town there was not any unholy places. The
Suffix in [Hebrew: ngdv] refers to the Corner-gate; the measuring line,
[Hebrew: qvh] according to the _Kethibh_, [Hebrew: qv hmdh], which is
the common form, according to the _Keri_, goes yet farther over against
it, &c. By the words "over against," it is intimated that it now goes
beyond the former dimensions of the town. [Hebrew: el] "over" (_Hitzig_
erroneously translates it "towards," or "by the side of it"), shows
that the hill Gareb is included within the circumference of the new
city. From the remarks formerly made, it appears that the hill Gareb,
and Goah, places which are nowhere else mentioned, must have been
situated on the West side; and, moreover, Gareb on the North-west [Pg
451] side[5] and Goah on the South-west side, [Hebrew: grb] has no
other signification than "the leper;" and "the hill of the leper" can
be the hill only, where the lepers had their abode. For, as early as in
the second year after the Exodus from Egypt, these lepers were obliged
to remain without the camp (comp. Numb. v. 3: "Without the camp shall
ye send them, and not shall they defile their camp in the midst whereof
I dwell"); and this law was so strictly enforced, that even Moses'
sister was removed out of the camp. When they had come to Canaan, the
provisions of the law in reference to the camp were transferred to the
towns; comp. farther Lev. xiii. 46: "All the days that he has the
leprosy, he shall be defiled; he shall dwell alone, without the camp
shall his habitation be;" Luke xvii. 12. Even Uzziah could not be
released from it; he lived without the city in Beth Chofshith, 2 Kings
xv. 5, which is commonly translated "house of the sick," instead of
"house of emancipation," viz., place where they lived, whom the Lord
had manumitted, who no more belonged to His servants; compare remarks
on Psa. lxxxviii. 6. Even in the kingdom of Israel they were so strict
in the execution of this Mosaic ordinance (one from among the
numberless proofs which are opposed to the current views of the
religious condition of this kingdom, and of its relation to the Law of
Moses), that, even during the siege of Samaria, the lepers were not
allowed to leave the place before the gate assigned to them, 2 Kings
vii. 3.--In order more fully to understand the meaning of our passage,
it is indispensable that we should inquire into the causes of that
regulation. _J. D. Michaelis_ (Mos. Recht. iv. Sec. 210) has his answer at
once in readiness, and is so fully convinced of its being right and to
the point, that he does not think it worth while to mention any other
view. Because _to him_ the temporal objects and aims are the highest,
he at once supposes them everywhere in the Law of the Holy God also.
The ordinance is to him nothing but a sanitary measure intended to
prevent contagion. But that would surely be a degree of severity
against the sick which could the less be excused by a regard to the
healthy, that leprosy, [Pg 452] if contagious at all, is so, at all
events, very slightly only, and is never propagated by a single touch.
(_Michaelis_ himself remarks: "Except in the case of cohabitation, one
may be quite safe.") But this severity against the sick must appear in
a still more glaring light, and the concern for the healthy becomes
even ridiculous, when we take into consideration the other regulations
concerning the lepers. They were obliged to go about in torn clothes,
bare-headed, and with covered chin, and to cry out to every that came
near them, that they were unclean. Even _Michaelis_ grants that those
regulations could not be designed to guard against infection. He
remarks: "But the leper should not cause disgust to any one by his
really shocking appearance, or terror by an accidental, unexpected
touch." But such a sentimental, unmerciful regard to the tender nerves
is surely elsewhere not to be perceived in the Law, which regulates all
the relations of man to his neighbour, by the principle: Thou shalt
love thy neighbour as thyself. _Farther_--From mere sanitary or police
considerations, the law in reference to the leprosy of the clothes and
houses, which is closely connected with the law about the leprosy of
men, cannot be accounted for. The reason which _Michaelis_ advances for
the law in reference to the clothes, is of such a nature, that not even
the most refined politicians have ever yet thought of a similar one.
The leprosy of the houses is, according to him, the dry-rot, which,
although not contagious, was so hateful to Moses, that, out of concern
for the health of the possessor, and for the goods kept in them, he
ordered them to be altogether pulled down. If Moses had entertained the
views on the power of the magistrates which lie at the foundation of
this, he could not have been an ambassador of God,--even apart
altogether from the absurdity of the measure. But the shallowness and
untenableness of _Michaelis'_ view will appear still more strongly,
when we state the positive argument for our view. It is this: Leprosy
is the outward image of sin; that, therefore, which is done upon the
leper, is, in reality, done upon the sinner. Every leper, therefore,
was a living sermon, a loud admonition to keep unspotted from the
world. The exclusion of the lepers from the camp, from the holy city,
conveyed figuratively quite the same lesson, as is done in Words by
John, in Revel. xxi. 27: [Greek: Kai ou me eiselthe eis auten] [Pg 453]
[Greek: pan koinon kai poioun bdelugma kai pseudos], and by Paul, in
Ephes. v. 5: [Greek: touto gar iste ginoskontes, hoti pas pornos, e
akathartos, e pleonektes ... ouk echei kleronomian en te basileia tou
Christou kai Theou]; comp. Gal. v. 19, 21. Now it is clearly seen what
is the Prophet's meaning in including the hill of the lepers in the
holy city. That which hitherto was unclean becomes clean; the Kingdom
of God now does violence to the sinners, while, hitherto, the sinners
had done violence to the Kingdom of God. It is only when we take this
view of leprosy, that we account for the fact, that just this disease
so frequently occurs as the theocratic punishment of sin. The image of
sin is best suited for reflecting it; he who is a sinner before God, is
represented as a sinner in the eyes of man also, by the circumstance
that he must exhibit before men the image of sin. God took care that
ordinarily the image and the thing itself were perfectly coincident;
although, no doubt, there were exceptions,--cases where God, according
to His wise and holy purposes, allowed that one relatively innocent (in
the case of a perfectly innocent man, if such an one existed, that
would not be possible, except in the case of Christ who bore _our_
disease), had to bear the image of sin, _e.g._, in the case of such as
were in danger of self-righteousness. As a theocratic punishment,
leprosy is found especially with such as had secretly sinned, or had
surrounded their sin with a good appearance, which, in the eyes of men,
prevents them from appearing as sinners, _e.g._, in the case of Miriam,
Uzziah, Gehazi, 2 Kings v. 27. In the Law, there are many warnings
against it, _e.g._, Deut. xxiv. 8; and David wishes, 2 Sam. iii. 29,
that the threatening of the Law might be fulfilled upon the house of
wicked Joab. The leprosy of houses, too, comes into consideration only
as an image of spiritual leprosy, as is seen from the command in Lev.
xiv. 49: "And he shall take to cleanse the house two birds, and cedar
wood, and scarlet, and hyssop; ver. 53: and make an atonement for the
house, and it shall be clean." The procedure here is quite the same as
that which was applied in the case of sin and sinners; and since the
house cannot sin, it follows that a symbolical action only can here be
spoken of.--Goah, in this context, in the midst of unclean places, can
hardly be anything else than some unclean place; and it is a very
obvious supposition that this nature is expressed in the very [Pg 454]
name. This signification interpreters usually endeavour to obtain by
deriving the word from [Hebrew: geh] "to roar," of which it is properly
the Partic. Fem., hence "the roaring one;" but it is more easily
obtained by adopting the derivation from [Hebrew: gve], just as
[Hebrew: wve] is derived from [Hebrew: wve], a derivation which was
first proposed by _Hiller_, S. 127. [Hebrew: gve] is used of a violent
death, no less than of a natural death; thus Numb. xvii. 27, 28, of a
death like that of the company of Korah, Datham, and Abiram; comp.
Zech. xiii. 8. This derivation being assumed, Goah would denote
"expiring," "hill[6] of expiring," which would be a very suitable name
of the place for the execution of criminals. _Vitringa_, in commenting
upon Is. xxx. 33, already expressed the conjecture that Goah, [Hebrew:
gl gveth] might perhaps be identical with Golgotha, but retracted it,
because the Evangelists explain Golgotha by [Greek: kraniou topos]. But
this is no sufficient and conclusive reason. When the Aramean became
the prevailing language, the name of the place may have received a new
etymology, just as the Fathers of the Church derive [Greek: pascha],
from [Greek: paschein], and many similar instances. It has already been
observed that the appellation, "place of skulls," is rather strange,
inasmuch as the skulls did not remain in the place of execution.[7] The
use of "skull" for "the place of skulls," as well as the omission of
the _L_, have been found strange. But all that is easily accounted for,
if the new signification, which substantially agreed with the former,
was merely transferred to the word. The identity of Goah and Golgotha
cannot be disputed,--at least, not from the situation. From Heb. xiii.
12, it is certain that Golgotha, as an unclean place, was situated
outside the city; that it was situated on the West side is, it is [Pg
455] true, testified by tradition only; comp. _Krafft_, S. 168 ff.;
_Ritter_, _Erdk._ xvi. 1, S. 422 ff.--We now come to the valley of
carcasses and of ashes. Even from the position, it becomes probable
that this is the valley of Hinnom. The North and West sides are already
done, and hence the South and East sides only remain. But the valley of
Hinnom was situated towards the South, or South-east of Jerusalem,
comp. _Krafft_, S 2; v. _Raumer_, S. 269. The valley of the carcasses
is here brought into immediate connection with _all_ the fields
(_q.d._, all the other fields), unto the brook Kidron, and is hence
designated as a portion of the valley of Kidron. But the valley of
Hinnom was the Southern, or South-eastern continuation of the valley of
Kidron, which extended on the East side. To this it may be added that,
in this context, we must necessarily expect the mention of the valley
of Hinnom, but that otherwise it would be wanting. Among all the
unclean places around Jerusalem, this was the most unclean. There could
be no greater victory of the Kingdom of God over the world, than if
this strictest antithesis to the holy city, this image of hell, was
included within the Holy City. It is only with respect to the cause of
the appellation, that some doubt may exist, [Hebrew: pgr], [Hebrew:
pgriM] is a common designation of dead bodies, of carcasses. There is
not one among the twenty-two passages in which it occurs, where it
refers to deceased righteous ones. It is used of the dead bodies of
animals, of idols, Lev. xxvi. 30; of the dead bodies of those whom the
Lord has smitten in His anger and wrath, Jer. xxxiii. 5; 1 Sam. xvii.
46; Amos viii. 3; Neh. iii. 3; Is. lxvi. 24; of such as are, after
death, treated like beasts, Jer. i. 49. Hence, opinions such as that of
_Venema_ fall to the ground, who supposes that the valley had that
name, because it was the public burying-ground. But there is,
nevertheless, scope for difference of opinion. One may understand by
[Hebrew: pgriM] the carcasses of animals;--the valley of Hinnom would,
in that case, be the public flaying-ground. It is in itself probable,
and it is generally held[8] that, after the defilement by Josiah (2
Kings xxiii. 10), it received this designation. But there are not
wanting evident traces that, [Pg 456] even in former times, the valley
served this purpose. In Is. xxx. 33, it is said in reference to the
Assyrians: "For Tophet (_Gesenius_ arbitrarily changes the _nomen
proprium_ into an _appellativum_, and translates: the place for
burning) is ordained of old; yea, for the king it is prepared, made
deep and large; the pile thereof has fire and wood in abundance." This
passage supposes that, even at that time, the valley of Hinnom, or
Tophet (which properly is only a part of it, but is sometimes, however,
used for the whole), had that destination; that piles were constantly
burning in it, on which the carcasses of animals were burned. Such a
place of execution and burial is already prepared for the carcasses of
the Assyrians rebelling against God. Even the existence of the name
Tophet, _i.e._, _horror_, _abomination_, bears witness to the impure
destination. The second passage is Is. lxvi. 24. Outside the Holy City,
the place where formerly the carcasses of the beasts were lying, there
now lie the dead bodies of the transgressors. As the former were, in
times past, food both for the worms and fire, so they are now. It is
true, that _Vitringa's_ objection, that it can scarcely be imagined
that the idolators should have chosen a place so unclean, is very
plausible. But how plausible soever such an argument may appear, it
cannot invalidate distinct historical testimonies; and it might very
well be set aside, although it would lead us too far away from our
purpose, to do so here. But it may also be supposed that the Prophet
looks back to his own declarations, chap. vii. 31, and xix. 4 ff.; and
that by [Hebrew: pgriM] here the corpses of transgressors are to be
understood, who are destined to destruction, and therefore are to be
buried in the flaying-ground. But this reference is, after all, too
far-fetched; and it is more natural to say, that the nature of Tophet,
as the flaying-ground, forms the foundation, which is common to those
passages and that before us.--But, besides the arguments already
advanced, there is still a grammatical reason, which shows that it is
really the valley of Hinnom which is meant. The article in [Hebrew:
hemq] forbids us to view it as being in the _Stat. construct._ and
connected with the following words. We must translate: "And the whole
valley, (viz. the valley of) the carcasses and ashes." The place is,
hence, first designated as "the valley," without any further
qualification, and receives this qualification only afterwards. But it
is just the valley of Hinnom which, in Jer. ii. 23, is [Pg 457]
designated as the valley [Greek: kat' exochen], and the gate leading to
it, as the gate of the valley, in Neh. ii. 13, 15; comp. remarks on
Zech. xi. 13.--In reference to [Hebrew: dwN], _Gousset_ Lex. p. 368,
remarks: "The words [Hebrew: dwN], and [Hebrew: dwN] are used only of
the ashes of the sacrificial animals, and their removal." This
observation is confirmed by every careful examination of the passages
in question. Never are [Hebrew: dwN] and [Hebrew: dwN] used otherwise
than of the ashes of sacrificial animals; comp. Lev. i. 16; vi. 3, 4; 1
Kings xiii. 5; Numb. iv. 13; Exod. xxvii. 3. The derivation of the
signification "ashes," from the fundamental signification "fat," as
advanced by _Winer_ and others (_cinis_ = _pinguefactio agrorum_), is
therefore wrong. On the contrary, even the burnt fat was still
considered as fat; the ashes of the fat are the [Hebrew: warit], the
residuum of the fat. By this determination of the word, the explanation
is very much facilitated. In Lev. vi. 3, 11, it is said: "And he (the
priest, after having offered up the burnt-offering) shall put off his
garments, and put on other garments, and carry forth the ashes without
the camp into a clean place." According to this regulation, the ashes
of the sacrificial animals were considered as relatively unclean. The
priest had to put off his holy garments, and to put on common garments,
and to carry the ashes without the camp,--afterwards without the Holy
City. Hence, in contrast to the sacrifices themselves, the ashes were
considered as the impure residuum which is found in everything which
men do in relation to God, as the image of sinful contamination
attaching to all, even the best works, and to the holiest elevation of
the heart. If, then, the place where the ashes are deposited is to be
included within the boundaries of the Holy City; is, in holiness, to be
equal to the place where the sacrifices themselves are offered,--what
else can be signified thereby, than that the unholy is to be
overpowered by the holy, the earthly by the divine, by means of a more
glorious communication of the Holy Spirit? It is quite analogous, when
Zechariah represents the horses as being in future adorned by the Lord
with the symbol of holiness, which formerly the High-priest only wore;
compare remarks on Zech. xiv. 20. This one argument might be brought
forward against the explanation which we have given, viz., that we
cannot well imagine that this was the destination of [Pg 458] the
valley of Hinnom, because, according to the Law, the ashes of the
sacrifices were to be carried to a _clean_ place; because that which
once stood in connection with that which is most holy and pure,
although, in itself, it may be unclean, must not be mingled with that
which is absolutely and constantly unclean. But in opposition to this
we remark, that it was not this whole valley that was unclean, but only
the place Tophet in it; and that if sometimes the whole is designated
as unclean, it is only because it included this most unclean among
all unclean places; comp. chap. vii. 31, xxxii. 35; 2 Kings xxiii.
10.--There cannot be any doubt that "the [Hebrew: wrmvt] unto the brook
Kidron" are identical with the fields of Kidron, [Hebrew: wdmvt qdrvN],
mentioned in 2 Kings xxiii.; but much to be doubted is the correctness
of the common supposition (after the example of _Kuypers_, _ad varia V.
T. loca_, in the _Syll. Dissert. sub praes. Schultens, et Schroederi_,
t. 1. p. 537), that [Hebrew: wrmvt] is identical with [Hebrew: wdmvt].
If that were the case, we could not see why Jeremiah should have
exchanged the common word for an uncommon one, which elsewhere does not
occur. Jeremiah is fond of exchanging words of similar sounds, and
especially words differing from one another merely by one letter, and
especially by [Hebrew: d] and [Hebrew: r]; but these exchanges are
always significant. (Compare _Kueper_. Jerem. p. xiv. and 43, and
_History of Balaam_, p. 447 f.) Although we cannot, with certainty, fix
the meaning of [Hebrew: wrmvt], yet so much seems to be sure, that this
word was one which more accurately designated the nature of those
places than the current _nomen proprium_, inasmuch as it would be
absurd to substitute for it another name, if there had not been deeper
reasons. One need only compare the [Hebrew: hr hmwHit] itself which, in
the simple historical prose, is used of the Mount of Olives, 2 Kings
xxiii. 13. The most simple and natural supposition is the following.
All the significations of the verbs [Arabic: **], [Arabic: **],
[Arabic: **] in Arabic run together in that of _cutting off_. [Hebrew:
wdmvt] the Plural of the Feminine of the Adjective [Hebrew: wrm] are,
accordingly, _loca abscissa_, places which are cut off and excluded
[from the Holy City] outwardly (_Aq._: [Greek: proasteia]), and, at the
same time, inwardly. Thus we obtain a striking contrast between their
present nature and future destination. What is now distinctly separated
from the holy, [Pg 459] then become holiness, [Hebrew: qdw]. From 2
Kings xxiii. it appears, moreover, that the fields of Kidron were
unclean. It was thither as to an unclean place, that Josiah caused all
the abominations of idolatry to be carried, and to be burnt; comp. ver.
4 (Josiah commanded all the vessels which had been made to Baal and
Ashera to be brought forth out of the temple): "And he burned them
_without Jerusalem_ in the fields of Kidron." Ver. 6: "And he brought
out the Ashera out of the house of the Lord, _without Jerusalem_, unto
the brook Kidron, and he burned them in the valley of Kidron.... And
cast the powder thereof upon the graves of the children of the people."
These last words (the children of the people = the mob, high and low,
who had polluted themselves by idolatry, comp. 2 Chron. xxxiv. 4: "And
he strewed the dust upon the graves of them that had sacrificed unto
them") enable us perhaps to conjecture the cause of the uncleanness of
these fields. They served as a burying ground to the adherents of the
worship of Moloch, who were anxious to rest in the neighbourhood of
their idol, which dwelt in the neighbouring Tophet; and this is the
more easily accounted for, that it is very probable that the sacrifices
offered up to the idol were, in a great measure, sacrifices offered for
the dead.--[Hebrew: qdw lihvh] refers to every thing mentioned in the
verse before us. As regards the last words, comp. Remarks on Zech. xiv.
11.



[Footnote 1: The person of the Messiah meets us as the living centre of
the salvation in ver. 9: "And they serve the Lord their God, and David
their King, whom I will raise up unto them;" on which words _Jonathan_
remarks: "And the Messiah the Son of David;" and _Abarbanel_: "This is
King Messiah, who is of the house of David, and is therefore called by
his name." From the parallel passages, Hos. iii. 5; Is. lv. 3, our
passage differs in this, that David here does not, as in those
passages, designate the family of David which centres in Christ, but
the person of the Messiah. The commentary is furnished by chap. xxiii.
5: "I raise unto David a righteous Sprout." The circumstance, that it
is not the Sprout of David, but David, that is spoken of here, is
explained from a reference to the words which the ten tribes spoke at
their rebellion, 1 Kings xii. 16: "We have no portion in David, neither
have we inheritance in the Son of Jesse. To your tents, O Israel." To
the person of the Messiah the Prophet reverts once more towards the
close also: "And their glorious one shall be out of themselves, and
their governor shall proceed from the midst of them (compare Mic. v. 1,
2, [2, 3]), and I cause him to draw near, and he approacheth unto me;
for who is surety for his heart to approach unto me, saith the Lord?"
God himself receives the King of the Future into the closest communion
with Him,--"I and the Father are one"--a communion which no one can
usurp by his own power, and which, in the case of the former kings,
even in that of David, was frequently disturbed by their sinful
weakness.]

[Footnote 2: _Hofmann_ (_Weiss. u. Erf._ 1 S. 138) assigns to the
phrase the meaning: "to make an arrangement." But decisive against this
is not only the derivation, (comp. _Gesenius Thesaurus_), but the
circumstance also, that it is almost exclusively and quite manifestly
used of a relation resting on reciprocity, of the making of a covenant
in the ordinary sense; and that the few instances where there is
apparently a reference to one party, form an exception only to the
rule.]

[Footnote 3: Even the most recent interpreters, who take [Hebrew: bel]
_ sensu malo_, still greatly differ,--a proof that this interpretation
has a very insufficient foundation on which to rest. _Gesenius_, _De
Wette_, _Bleek_ (on Heb. viii. 9), retain the explanation by
_fastidire_, _rejicere_; _Maurer_ translates: _dominarer_, _domini
partes sustinerem_, contrasting tyrannical dominion with a relation of
love; _Ewald_: "Seeing that I am her master and protector;" _Hitzig_:
"And I got possession of her." All these interpretations are opposed by
the _usus loquendi_, according to which [Hebrew: bel] has only the two
significations: "to possess," and "to take for a wife," the latter
being the ordinary and prevailing one.]

[Footnote 4: Not less than these, _Hitzig_ too has allowed himself to
be carried away by the appearance. He says: "Then, indeed, the office
of religious instructors must cease."]

[Footnote 5: According to _Krafft_ (_sur Topographie Jerus._ S. 158),
it is only the hill Bezetha which, by the third wall of Agrippa, was
added to the town, that can correspond to the situation of Gareb.]

[Footnote 6: _Thenius_, in the appendix to the Commentary on the Books
of Kings, S. 24, remarks: "[Hebrew: gl] does not, in any of the
dialects, denote the natural hill of rocks, but merely stones heaped
up." Hence, the hill would be an artificial hill for the execution of
criminals. (Compare the German word _Rabenstein_, lit. "raven-stone,"
for: place of execution.)]

[Footnote 7: This objection would be removed if, following _Thenius_
and _Krafft_, S. 158, we were to explain the name from the form of the
hill, which is that of a skull. But _none_ of the Evangelists at least
have advanced this explanation. The fact that three of them add the
Greek explanation to the name (Matt. xxvii. 33; Mark xv. 22; John xix.
17), and one translated it into Greek (Luke xxiii. 33) shows that it
stood in connection with the event in question. But this circumstance
is quite decisive, that three Evangelists explain it by [Greek: kraniou
topos], "place of a skull."]

[Footnote 8: Compare the Book _Kosri_, p. 72. _Buxtorff_ says: "Gehenna
was a well-known place near Jerusalem, viz., a valley in which the fire
was never extinguished, and where unclean bones, carcasses, and other
unclean things, were burned."]




                         CHAPTER XXXIII. 14-26.


Still before the destruction, but in the view of it, the Prophet, while
in the outer court of the prison, was favoured with the revelation
contained in chap. xxxii., and with that revelation of which our
section forms a portion. It may appear strange that, in the
introduction, the revelation of great things hitherto unknown to him is
promised to the Prophet, and which he is told to seek by calling unto
the Lord; while, after all, the subsequent prophecy contains scarcely
any prominent, peculiar feature. But this is easily explained, when we
take into consideration that, throughout Scripture, dead [Pg 460]
knowledge is not regarded as knowledge; that the hope of restoration
had, in the natural man, in the Prophet as well as in all believers, an
enemy that strove to darken and extinguish it; that, therefore, the
promise of restoration was ever new, and the word of God always great
and exalted. In the first part of the revelation, after the destruction
had been represented as unavoidable, and all human hope had been cut
oft, the restoration is described more in general terms. In the second
part, the Lord meets a two-fold special grief of the believers. The
time was approaching when the house of David was to be most deeply
humbled, when every trace of its former glory was to be done away with.
With it, the hopes of the people seem to be buried. God himself had
declared this house to be the medium, through which all the mercies
were to come, which He, as the King, had promised to bestow upon His
people. But what was to become of the mercies, if the channel was
destroyed, through which they were to be bestowed upon the people? The
temple which, through the guilt of the people, had been changed into a
den of robbers, was to be destroyed. But, with the existence of the
temple, the existence of the Levitical priesthood was bound up, and if
the latter was done away with, how was to be obtained forgiveness of
sins, which, in the Law, had been connected with the mediation of the
Levitical priesthood? These fears and cares the Lord now meets by
declaring that, in both respects, the perishing would be an arising,
that life should arise from death.

The genuineness of this section has been assailed by _Jahn_ (_Vaticinia
Mess._ iii. p. 112, ff.[1]), after the example of _J. D. Michaelis_,
who, in the German translation of the Bible, inclosed it within
brackets. For the present, we mention only the internal
reason--deferring the refutation till we come to the exposition of
particulars--because we require it in order to set aside the external
reason. Jahn, p. 121, sums it up in these words: "The matter stands in
opposition to all the prophecies of Jeremiah and all the other
Prophets. For all of them limit themselves to the one David who was to
come [Pg 461] after the captivity, and do not mention any successor to
him, far less such a multitude of descendants of David and of Levites,
which is promised to the people under the name of a blessing, but which
would, in reality, have been a very heavy burden to the people, at
whose expense they were to be splendidly maintained." The external
reason is the omission of the section in the Alexandrian version.
Proceeding upon the altogether gratuitous assumption of a double
recension of the prophecies of Jeremiah, people imagine that, by the
omission in the Alexandrian version, they are entitled to suppose that,
in that recension which the LXX. followed, this section was not
contained. But the arguments are most unsatisfactory, by which the
attempt is made to establish that many portions, not translated by the
LXX., were not found by them in their manuscripts. Where there
notoriously prevail negligence, ignorance, arbitrariness, entire want
of a clear conception of the task of a translator, those inferences are
out of place which suppose just the opposite of all these (comp.
_e.g._, the inferences in _Jahn_, S. 116 ff.) Although we cannot
sometimes discover and state the reason which induced the LXX. to make
any omission, in case that that which was omitted was really in the
text, what is it that is thereby proved? Could we, _a priori_, expect
anything else, since we are on the territory of accident and whim? It
is quite sufficient that in a multitude of passages we can point out
the most insufficient reasons which induced them to make omissions,
alterations, transpositions; for it is just these which show that we
are in the territory of accident and whim, where it is unreasonable
every where to expect reasons. Now, to these passages, that before us
likewise belongs; so that, even supposing that the ground of the
deviation sometimes lies in a different recension, our passage cannot
be regarded as belonging to this class; and, hence, from its omission,
nothing can be inferred against its genuineness. A twofold reason here
presents itself, which may have induced them to the omission: 1.
Important elements of the prophecy under consideration have already
occurred, vers. 15, 16, almost _verbatim_, in chap. xxiii. 3, 6; vers.
20-25, as regards the thought, altogether, and as regards the words,
partly agree with chap. xxxi. 35-37; and it is certain that the LXX.
often omitted [Pg 462] that which had occurred previously, because they
were unable to perceive the deeper meaning of the repetition, and
transferred their own ignorance to the Prophet. 2. In that which
was peculiar to the passage before us, it was just the principal
thought--the same which _J. D. Michaelis_ and _Jahn_ advance against
the  genuineness--which must have been most objectionable to the LXX.,
who  were incapable of perceiving the deeper meaning. An increase of
the  Levites and of the family of David as the stare of the heavens and
the  sand of the sea, is a thought of which the Prophet must be freed,
whether he entertained it or not. The omission in the Alexandrian
version, therefore, does not prove any thing, except that even 2000
years before _J. D. Michaelis_, _Jahn_, _Hitzig_, and _Movers_, there
were men who were as little able to understand the text as these
expositors.

Ver. 14. "_Behold days come, saith the Lord, and I perform the good
word which I leave spoken unto the house of Israel, and concerning the
house of Judah._"

The "good word" may, in a more general way, be understood of all the
gracious promises of God to Israel, in contrast to the evil word, the
threatenings which hitherto had been fulfilled upon Israel; comp. 1
Kings viii. 56, where Solomon, in the prayer at the consecration of the
temple, says: "Blessed be the Lord, that has given rest unto His people
Israel, according to all which He spoke; there has not failed (the
opposite of [Hebrew: qvM]) one word of all His good word which He spoke
through Moses His servant." In Deut. xxviii. the _good_ word and the
_evil_ word are placed beside one another; and the former is blessed,
from vers. 1-14; afterwards, the curse is declared. The centre and
substance of this good word was the promise to David, through whose
righteous Sprout all the promises to Israel should find their final
fulfilment. But we may also suppose that, by the "good word," the
Prophet specially denotes this promise to David, which he had repeated
in chap. xxiii. 5, 6. This latter supposition is preferable, since, in
vers. 15, 16, that repetition of it is quoted, and ver. 17 contains an
allusion to the fundamental promise. The change of [Hebrew: al] and
[Hebrew: el] is significant; Judah is considered as the object of the
proclamation of salvation, because salvation cometh from the Jews. The
correctness of this view is proved by [Pg 463] vers. 15, 16, where that
only is spoken of, which, in the first instance, belongs to Judah; so
that Israel is only received into the communion of the salvation, in
the first instance, destined for Judah.

Ver. 15, 16. "_In those days and at that time will I cause a righteous
Sprout to grow up unto David, and he worketh justice and righteousness
in the land. In those days Judah is endowed with salvation, and
Jerusalem dwelleth safely; and this is the name by which she shall be
called: The Lord our righteousness._"

It is intentionally that the promise is here repeated in the former
shape, in order to show that it still existed; that the glaring
contrast presented by the present state of things was not able to annul
it; that even in the view of the destruction, of the deepest abasement
of the house of David, it still retained its right and power. Instead
of [Hebrew: hqimvti], the more suitable [Hebrew: acmiH] is here used,
because the reference to Jehoiakim does not take place in this passage,
as it did in the previous one. Instead of Israel, which is found there,
we have here Jerusalem, because it was just the restoration of
Jerusalem, which it was so difficult for the faithful to believe, after
its destruction had been described in ver. 4 ff. For the same reason,
the Prophet here assigns the same name to Jerusalem which he did there
to the Sprout of David. The same city, which as yet is groaning under
the wrath of God, shall, in future, be endowed with righteousness by
the Lord.

Ver. 17. "_For thus saith the Lord: There shall not be cut of from
David a man sitting upon the throne of the house of Israel._"

The connection with what precedes is pertinently brought out by
_Calvin_: "The Prophet had spoken of the restoration of the Church;
that doctrine he now confirms by promising, that both the kingly and
priestly office should be perpetual; and it was just these two things
which constituted the salvation of the people. For, without a king,
they were just like a cut-off tree, or a mutilated body; without a
priest they were in a state of dispersion. For the priest was the
mediator between God and the people, but the king represented the
person of God." The expression [Hebrew: la ikrt], "there shall not be
cut off," &c., is a simple repetition of the promise to David, in [Pg
464] that form in which it had been quoted by David himself, shortly
before his death, in his address to Solomon, 1 Kings ii. 4, and
afterwards twice by Solomon, 1 Kings viii. 25, ix. 5. It does not
designate an uninterrupted succession, but forms the contrast only to a
breaking off for ever. This appears even from the circumstance that, in
the fundamental promise, God reserves to himself the punishment of the
apostate members of the Davidic house, and that in Jeremiah the
announcement of its utter abasement is so frequently repeated.

Ver. 18, "_And to the Levitical priests there shall not be cut off
before me a man, offering burnt-offerings, and kindling meat-offerings,
and doing sacrifice all days._"

In order rightly to understand these words, it is necessary to go back
to their cause; for it is from the grief only that the comfort receives
its explanation. The Prophet has here not by any means to do with
members of the tribe of Levi mourning over the loss of the prerogatives
of their tribe. If such were the case, it would be necessary to hold
fast by the letter, inasmuch as it is only when the letter is adhered
to, that the promise can afford consolation for such grief. The
Prophet's consolations, on the contrary, are destined for all the
believers, who were mourning over the destruction of the relation to
God, which hitherto had existed through the mediation of the tribe of
Levi. If only the relation remained, it was of little importance
whether it was realised by the tribe of Levi, as heretofore, or in some
other way. Just as the grief has respect to the substance only, so has
the consolation also. Israel, in future too, shall retain free access
to his reconciled God,--that is the fundamental thought; and every
thing by which this thought was manifested and realised in history, in
what form soever it might be, must be viewed as comprehended in it. We
thus obtain a threefold fulfilment: 1. In the time after the return
from the captivity, the consolation was realised in the form in which
it is here expressed. The fact, that God admitted and promoted the
rebuilding of the temple, was an actual declaration that the Levitical
priesthood was reinstated in its mediatorial office. 2. In the highest
degree the idea of the Levitical priesthood was realised through
Christ, who, as a High-Priest and Mediator, bore the sins of His
people, and made intercession for the transgressors, and [Pg 465] in
whom the Levitical priesthood ceased, just as the seed-corn disappears
in the stalk. 3. Through Christ, the believers themselves became
priests, and obtained free access to the Father.--The following reasons
show that we have a right to maintain this independence of the thought
upon the form: 1. The Prophet is so penetrated with the thought of the
glory of the New Dispensation far outshining that of the Old, that,
_even a priori_, we could not suppose that, as regards the priesthood,
he expected an eternal duration of its form, hitherto so poor. It is
the substance only which, in his view, is permanent. One need only
compare the section, chap. xxxi. 31 ff. How intentionally does he here
bring forward the idea that the New Covenant would not be like the Old;
how does he point from the shadow to the substance! But it is
especially chap. iii. 16 which, in this respect, is to be regarded. In
that passage, the ceasing of the former dignity of the Ark of the
Covenant is announced repeatedly, and in the strongest terms; and we
have already seen that, along with the Ark of the Covenant, the temple,
the Levitical priesthood, the whole sacrificial service stands in the
closest and most indissoluble connection; so that all this must fall
along with it. 2. A very important proof is furnished by ver. 22, which
must be regarded as a declaration, by the Prophet himself, as to the
manner in which he wishes to be understood. Now, in that verse, it is
promised that all the descendants of Abraham shall be changed into
Levites; and this is declared to form a part of the eternal acceptance
of the tribe of Levi, promised in the verse under consideration. This
shows then, that, in the verse under review, the Levites cannot come
into consideration as descendants of Levi after the flesh, but only as
regards their destination and vocation. 3. As the most ancient and
authentic interpreter of Jeremiah, Zechariah must be considered. He was
most anxious to obviate the same fears which Jeremiah here meets; and,
in him, the first two of the three features which Jeremiah comprehends
in the unity of the idea, appear separated, but in such a manner that
the connecting unity of the idea is not lost sight of In Zech. iii.,
God assures the people that, notwithstanding the greatness of their
sins, He would not only allow the office of High-priest to continue as
heretofore, and accept his mediation, but that, at some future period,
[Pg 466] He would also send the true High-priest, who should make a
complete and everlasting atonement. In ver. 8, the High-priest and his
colleagues in the priestly office are designated as types of Christ
who, putting most completely to shame the people's despair in God's
mercy, should fully accomplish the expiation and atonement which the
former had effected only imperfectly. In chap. iv. the priestly is,
along with the royal order, designated as one of the two sons of the
oil, the two anointed ones of the Lord, whose anointing remaineth for
ever; and from chap. vi. 13, where the Messiah appears as the true
High-priest and King at the same time, it appears that, here too, the
shadow only belongs to the Levitical priesthood, but the substance to
Christ. 4. Elsewhere, too, plain examples are not wanting, in which the
idea of the priesthood only is regarded, while the peculiar form of its
manifestation under the Old Testament is lost sight of. Among those is
Is. lxi. 6, where, in reference to all Israel, it is said: "And ye
shall be named priests of Jehovah, ministers of our God shall they call
you." Here the change of all Israel into the tribe of Levi is
announced; and the objection which, perhaps, might be brought forward,
that here only priests in general are spoken of, while Jeremiah speaks
of Levitical priests, is met by the second passage, chap. lxvi. 21:
"And from them also will I take for _Levitical_ priests saith the
Lord." It makes no difference for our purpose whether "from them" be
referred to the Gentiles (which is the correct view, compare p. 360),
as is done by _Vitringa_ and _Gesenius_, or to the Israelites living in
exile. For, although the latter interpretation be received, yet so much
is certain, that such shall be taken for Levitical priests as were not
descendants of Levi: for, otherwise, no _taking_, no special divine
mercy would have taken place. Even the Law already knows an _ideal_
priesthood by the side of the ordinary one; and such an one meets us
also in Ps. xcix. 6; compare my Commentary on that passage.--After
having thus fixed the sense of the promise referring to the Levitical
priesthood, it will not be difficult to discover the right view in
reference to the family of David. Here, too, a threefold fulfilment
takes place. 1. It was realized in the times immediately after the
captivity, when Zerubbabel, a scion of the Davidic house, became the
mediator of the mercies which God [Pg 467] as King, vouchsafed to His
people. To a certain degree, that mercy too comes in here which, at a
later period, God, in His capacity as King, bestowed upon the people by
means of civil rulers, who were not from the house of David. For, since
the dominion had been for ever transferred to the house of David, these
rulers can be considered only as being engrafted into it, as
representatives and vice-regents,--much in the same way as the
blessing, which was bestowed upon the people by the priestly office of
the non-priest Samuel, must be considered as being included in the
promise in reference to the Aaronic priesthood. For all that God
vouchsafed through those rulers, was for the sake of the Davidic house
only, which for ever had been destined to be the channel of His regal
blessings. If the kingdom of David had really been at an end, He would
not have given to the people even those rulers, and the deliverance and
prosperity granted to them,--as is clearly seen from a comparison of
the times, after the great Hero of David's race ascended the throne,
when every trace of the regal grace of God in raising other rulers
ceased; for now, that the race of David itself rules again, and for
ever, no representation of it can any more take place. But, in the
passage under consideration, it would the less be suitable to separate
everything which does not, in the strictest sense, belong to it, that
here the promise to David is not viewed with reference to him and his
house, but solely with reference to the people. Hence, the
manifestation of the regal grace of God forms the centre; and the house
of David comes into consideration, only in so far as it was destined to
be the mediator of this grace. 2. It was fulfilled in Christ; and from
vers. 15, 16, it appears that the Prophet had this fulfilment chiefly
in view. These two fulfilments are connected with one another by
Zechariah also, in chap. iv.--3. It was realized by the raising of the
whole true posterity of Abraham to the royal dignity, through Christ.
This most striking antithesis to the despair--the despair saying: there
is no king in Israel; the consolation: all Israel are kings--is
expressly brought forward in ver. 22.--We still remark that we must
not, by any means, as is commonly done, translate: "To the priests and
Levites," but, as also in Is. lxvi. 21: To the Levitical priests;
compare the arguments in proof in _Genuineness of the Pentateuch_, p.
329 ff. The epithet, [Pg 468] "Levitical," is added in order to prevent
the thought that, perhaps, priests in another than the literal sense
are spoken of, compare p. 360. It serves therefore the same purpose as
the expression: "He ruleth as a king," in chap. xxxiii. 5.--As regards
the sacrifices, we must not by any means suppose, as is done by the
ancient interpreters, that spiritual sacrifices are here simply spoken
of. The correct view rather is, that the Prophet represents the
substance under its present form, in and with which it would now soon
be lost for a season; and as he has to do with the substance only, he
does not say anything as to whether this substance would, in future,
rise again in the same form, and whether it was to continue for ever in
that form. History has answered the first in the affirmative, and the
second in the negative; and from chap. iii. 16, it appears that the
Prophet, too, would, upon _inquiry_, have answered in the negative as
regards the last point. Moreover, how well they knew, even under the
Old Testament dispensation, to distinguish, in reference to the
sacrifices, between the substance and the form, considering the latter
as a thing merely accidental, is seen from passages such as Hosea xiv.
3 (2): "Take with you words, and turn to the Lord and say unto Him:
_Take_ all iniquity, and _give_ good, and we will recompense to thee
bulls, our lips." Here the thanks are represented as the substance of
the thank-offering, and, indeed, so perfectly, that the thank-offering,
the bullocks, is _entirely_ where only thanks, the lips, are. The
outward sacrifice is the vessel only in which the gift is presented to
God. _Farther_--Ps. iv. 14, where, in contrast to the merely external
sacrifices, it is said: "Offer unto God thanksgivings;" Mal. i. 11, and
many other passages.

Vers. 19, 20. "_And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying: Thus
saith the Lord, If ye will make void my covenant, the day, and my
covenant, the night, so that there shall be no more day and night in
their season_; Ver. 21. _Then also shall be void my covenant with
David, my servant, that he shall not have one who reigns on his throne,
and with the Levitical priests, my servants._"

The word [Hebrew: tprv] is very significant. _Calvin_ says: "The
Prophet indirectly reproves the wickedness of the people, because, as
much as lay with them, they destroyed the covenant [Pg 469] of God by
their obstreperous cries.... This incredulity, therefore, the Prophet
blames, and it is as if he were saying: To what are these complaints to
lead? It is just as if you were trying to draw down sun and moon from
heaven, and to do away with the difference between day and night, and
overturn all the laws of nature, because it is I, the same God, whose
will it was that the night should follow the day, who have also
promised, &c."--[Hebrew: hivM] and [Hebrew: hlilh] are appositions to:
My covenant. The day and night in their regular succession are the
covenant which is here spoken of The phrase [Hebrew: ivmM vlilh], which
signifies "by day and night," "daily and nightly," stands here for:
_tempus diurnum et nocturnum_. "The covenant," [Hebrew: brit], does not
by any means stand here in the signification _stabilis ordinatio_; nor
is it be considered as being entered into with the day and night;
these, on the contrary, are the covenant-blessings. God, who vouchsafed
_them_, and all that is connected with them, that the sun shines by
day, and the moon by night, enters thereby, according to the
explanation given on chap. xxxi. 32, into a covenant with man. By the
inviolable maintenance of the course of nature, He binds himself to the
inviolable maintenance of the moral order. This clearly appears when we
consider that, after the great flood, the covenant with nature is anew
entered into, and its inviolability anew established; comp. Gen. ix. 9:
"Behold, I establish my covenant _with you_, and with your seed after
you;" viii. 22: "All the days of the earth, seed time and harvest, and
heat and cold, and summer and autumn, and day and night shall not cease
any more." With these covenant-promises, covenant-laws and obligations
are connected, which the covenant imposes. With this covenant of
nature, which is common to all men, and which, at Noah's time, was not
made for the first time, but only renewed, the covenant of grace, which
is peculiar to Israel only, stands on a level. To assert that the
latter has become void, is nothing else than to attempt to pull sun and
moon down from heaven. For it is one and the same God who has made both
covenants.

Ver. 22. "_As the host of heaven is not numbered, and as the sand of
the sea is not measured, so will I increase the seed of David, my
servant, and the Levites that minister unto me._"

Even considered in itself, the literal fulfilment of this verse [Pg
470] involves an absurdity. Such an increase of the bodily descendants
of David lies beyond the bounds of possibility; and even if this were
not the case, yet this increase, just as the similar increase of the
Levites, would not have the nature of a promise, but that of a
threatening. At all events, the consolation would have no relation to,
or connection with, the grief For the latter did not refer to the
number of the descendants of David, and that of the Levites, but to
their acceptance with God, and, in them, to the acceptance of the
people; but that acceptance has nothing to do with number. To this,
another reason is still to be added. It cannot be denied that there is
a verbal reference to the promise to Abraham in Gen. xv. 5, xxii. 17.
Since, then, these words, which originally referred to all Israel, are
here transferred to the family of David, and to the Levites, it is
thereby sufficiently intimated that all Israel shall be changed into
the family of David, and into the tribe of Levi. This idea need not at
all surprise us. It has its foundation in the Law itself All that is
announced here is, that the vocation and destination of the
covenant-people, which is already expressed in the Law, but which
hitherto was realised only very imperfectly, is, at some future period,
to be perfectly realised. In Exod. xix. 6, God says of Israel: "Ye
shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, [Hebrew: mmlkt khniM]."[2]
Hence, first a kingdom. The nature of a kingdom is, not to have any
power over it other than the Divine power, and to have everything else
under its authority. By this declaration, the dominion of the world was
secured to the people of God. This high prerogative always remained
with the covenant-people so long as they had not, by their guilt,
spontaneously got under a moral servitude to the world. The outward
servitude was always a reflection of the inward only. It never was
inflicted upon the covenant-people as such, but always upon that
covenant-people which had become like the world. And even when this
_unnatural_ condition took place, this high dignity was not forfeited
by the single individuals who, knowing that they were purchased at a
high price, had kept themselves inwardly free from the bondage of the
world. Although in fetters and bonds, they yet remained inwardly free.
World, [Pg 471] sin, death, and hell, could do them no harm. Yea,
notwithstanding all outward appearance of victory, those enemies were,
in reality, ruled by them; and even their outward servitude was, when
more deeply considered, a sign of their dominion. For the Law of the
Lord of Hosts was in their inward parts; it was the living principle of
their existence. It was according to this Law that the whole world was
governed; and it was according to it that the servitude of their people
also took place. They were thus co-regents with God, and, as such,
ruled over their rulers.--All the single members of this kingdom, which
consists entirely of kings, were, at the same time, to be priests. In
these words it was already implied and declared, that the Levitical
priesthood, which was instituted at a later period, could not have that
importance which the priesthood had with other nations of antiquity,
where priests and people stood in an absolute antithesis, which
admitted of no mediation, and where it was the priests only who stood
in an immediate relation to God. It was thereby implied and declared,
that the priests, in one aspect, (in other respects, they were types
and foreshadowings of Christ) possessed rights that were only
transferred to them; that they were representatives of Christ, and
that, hence, their mediation would, at some future period, disappear
altogether. And in order that the people might always remain fully
conscious of this; in order that they might know that they themselves
were the real bearers of the priestly dignity, they retained, even
after the institution of the Levitical priesthood, that priestly
function which formed the root and foundation of all others, viz., the
slaying of the covenant-sacrifice, of the paschal lamb, which formed
the centre of all other sacrifices, inasmuch as the latter served only
as a supplement to it. That, even under the Old Testament dispensation,
this importance of the paschal rite was duly recognized, is seen from
_Philo_, _de vita Mos._ (p. 686, Francf.): "In offering up the paschal
lamb, the office of the laymen is by no means simply to bring the
sacrificial animals to the altar, that they may be slain and offered up
by the priests; but, according to the regulations of the Law, the whole
people exercise priestly functions, inasmuch as every one in his own
behalf offers up the prescribed sacrifice."--We have thus here before
[Pg 472] us the highest completion of the comfort for the mourning
covenant-people. They are not merely to receive back their king, their
priests; nay, they are altogether to be changed into a kingly and
priestly generation. It must not be overlooked that, in substance, this
was already contained in the promise to Abraham. We have already proved
in Vol. i. p. 211, ff., that this promise to Abraham does not refer to
a great number of bodily descendants, _tales quales_, but that, on the
contrary, it refers only to such sons of Abraham as are, at the same
time, sons of God; hence, to a royal and priestly generation.--If now
we look to the fulfilment, the passage which, above all, presents
itself, is 1 Pet. ii. 9: [Greek: humeis de genos eklekton, basileion
hierateuma k.t.l.] Here that passage of Exodus is represented as a
prophecy which, in the present only, was fulfilled. Israel has now
become that which, according to its destiny, it ought always to have
been, a host of royal priests,--priests who at the same time have a
royal nature and character. That which now already exists perfectly in
the germ, shall, at some future period, come forth in full development,
according to Rev. v. 10: [Greek: kai epoiesas autous to theo hemon
basileis kai hiereis, kai basileusousin epi tes ges.] Believers, when
sin has been extirpated in them, shall have the freest access to God.
When His will shall have become theirs, and when, at the same time, His
dominion over the whole world appears more visibly, they shall
unconditionally rule with Him. How this dignity of theirs has its
foundation in Christ, is seen from Rev. i. 5, 6, where the words:
[Greek: kai epoiesen hemas basileian, hiereis to theo kai patri
hautou], stand in close connection to [Greek: ho archon ton basileon
tes ges], and to [Greek: kai lusanti hemas apo ton hamartion hemon en
to haimati hautou.]

Ver. 23. "_And the word of the Lord came to Jeremiah, saying:_ Ver. 24.
_Dost thou not see what this people are speaking, and say: The two
families which the Lord hath chosen, He hath now rejected them, and my
people they despise, that they should still be a people before them._"

It is scarcely conceivable how modern interpreters can assert that by
"this people," not the Israelites, but Gentiles, the Egyptians or
Chaldeans, or the "neighbours of the Jews on the Chaboras," (_Hitzig_),
or the Samaritans (_Movers_), are to be understood. In advancing such
assertions, it is overlooked [Pg 473] that the Prophet has here quite
the same persons in view as in the whole remaining section, and as in
these chapter's throughout, viz., those among Israel--and to them more
or less all belonged, even those most faithful--who, because they saw
Israel prostrate, for ever despaired of its deliverance and salvation;
and, indeed, for the most part, in such a manner as to give to this
despair a good aspect, viz., that of humility. They imagined, and said
that the people had sinned in such a manner against God, that He was
free from all his obligations, and could not at all receive them again.
To those the Prophet shows that such a thought is, notwithstanding the
fair appearance, blasphemy. All despair abases God into an idol, into a
creature. Faith holds fast by the word, by the promise. It says:
Although sin abounds with us, the grace of God does much more abound.
As truly as God always remains God, so surely His people will always
remain His people. He indeed chastises them, but He does not give them
over to death. One need only consider the [Hebrew: tprv] in ver.
20.--The expression "this people," is contemptuous, comp. Is. viii. 11.
The Prophet thereby intimates that those who use such language, cease
thereby to be members of the people of God. The "two families" are
Judah and Israel. These had, in the preceding verses, likewise been, in
substance, the subject of discourse; for the election and rejection of
the tribe of Levi, and of the house of David, had been treated of in so
far only, as they stood in relation to the election or rejection of the
people; so that here only the same thing is repeated in a different
form, in consideration of the fact, that weak faith and despair are so
slow to hear. The words: "He hath now rejected them," were, in a
certain sense, true; but not in the sense of the speakers. They, on the
contrary, maintained, in opposition to the election, a rejection for
ever, which was tantamount to: Jehovah, the eternal and unchangeable
One, is no more Jehovah; He is a man that He lieth, and a son of man
that He repenteth. As surely as God is Jehovah, so surely also [Greek:
ametameleta ta charismata kai he klesis tou theou], Rom. xi. 29. The
expression "_my_ people," directs attention to how God is now despised
in Israel. On the contrast between "_my_ people" and "a people,"
compare remarks on chap. xxxi. 36.

Ver. 25. "_Thus saith the Lord: If not my covenant daily_ [Pg 474] _and
nightly, if I have not appointed the ordinances of heaven and
earth_;"--

Compare ver. 20. The covenant daily and nightly, _i.e._, the covenant
which refers to the constant and regular alternation of day and night.
The ordinances of heaven and earth denote the whole course of
nature,--especially the relations of sun, moon, and stars, to the
earth, comp. chap. xxxi. 35--in so far as it is regulated by God's
ordinance, and is, therefore, a lasting one.

Ver. 26. "_So will I also cast away the seed of Jacob, and of David, my
servant, that I do not take farther from his seed rulers over the seed
of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob. For I will turn to their captivity, and
have mercy upon them._"

The casting away of the seed of Jacob, and that of the seed of David,
are inseparably connected. For since, by the promise to David, the
kingdom had been for ever bound together with his race, Israel was no
more the people of God, and no more a people at all, if David was no
more the servant of God. The Plural [Hebrew: mwliM] is easily accounted
for, from the circumstance that it was not the number, but only the
_fact_ that was here concerned (comp. remarks on chap. xxiii. 4, and,
at the same time, those on ver. 18); but it is beyond any doubt, that
the Prophet has here in view the revival of the dominion of David in
the Messiah,--has it, at least, chiefly in view. The enumeration of the
three Patriarchs recalls to mind the whole series of the promises
granted to them. The words: "I will turn to their captivity" (not: "I
will turn their captivity," compare remarks on Ps. xiv. 7; captivity is
an image of misery), rest on Deut. xxx. 3.



[Footnote 1: They have been joined by _Movers_ (_de utriusque recens.
Jerem. indole_), who declares ver. 18 and 21-24 to be a later
interpolation (comp. against this view _Kueper_, S. 173, and
_Wichelhaus_, de Jerem. Vers. Alex., p. 170), and _Hitzig_, according
to whom the whole portion, vers. 14-26, consists of "a series of single
additions from a later period."]

[Footnote 2: Compare the discussions on this passage in my Commentary
on Rev. i. 6.]




                         END OF VOLUME SECOND.







End of the Project Gutenberg EBook of Christology of the Old Testament: And
a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions. Vol. 2, by Ernst Hengstenberg

*** 