Obrazy na stronie
[ocr errors]




6); c) in the Hiphil: “to wake up;" for waking up is It is not known who "the son of Tabeal was. 30 the effect of a shock that the sleeper experiences from

the Hebrew Jiu (comp. jipno 1 Kings xv. 18); the without or within. In this sense, however, the Hiphil is evidently a direct causative, since it properly means “ to ending yx is changed in the pause from 58, whereby, make a shaking, a shaker.” Wherever else this Hiph. perhaps intentionally, arises the meaning “not good” In occurs, except our verse, it means “to awake.” | (good for nothing). If the name was of Israelitish oriOur verse is therefore the only one where the word oc- gin (comp. 77770) then likely that Tabeal or his son curs as the causative of the notion 1P - timere (verse was a fugitive of Judea of note. The name is found 16). Many expositors therefore have hesitated to take again Ezra iv. 7. On the Assyrian monuments of the word in this sense. Thus FUERST (Concord., p. 988) the time of Tiglath-Pileser is mentioned however an would give our Yop.?? the meaning incidere, impungere, I-ti-bio-i-lu, or Ti-bio-i-lu, with the addition “mat A-ru-mu" or abscindere, in that he combines it with pip“thorn,” | i. e, from the land of Aram. or with tp tempus abscissionis, “harvest.”' GESENIUS, Ver. 8 b. The position of these words is surprising. (Thes. p. 1208) proposes to read 722???? coarctemus, ur- Why do they not stand after ver. 9 a 9 And how is the geamus, (xxix. 2, 7). However, as this Hiphil is in 1 at the beginning of ver. 8 to be construed ? 'Is it that case unusual, it seems better to take it in a sense that paratactic Vav, that is determined only by the connecis suggested by something near at hand, ver. 16. The

tion? And what is it that so determines it? Shall we feminine suffix here and afterwards in

regard it as causal, which were quite grammatical ? nina relates plainly to Judah as land. The meaning (Comp. Gen. xxiv. 50; Deut. xvii. 16; Ps. vii. 10, etc.

Ewald's Gram., 2353 a ; GESEN. & 155, 1 c). Or shall we, of the Hiph. y'pan is not quite clear. The fundamen like ChrYSOSTOM and Calvin, with whom ТHOLUCK agrees, tal meaning of the word is: “to split.” It is used of take it in the sense of vũy or interea | Take one or the splitting wood (Eccl. x. 9, coll. Gen. xxii. 3) of eggshells other and it is not satisfactory. It seems to me to an(Isa. lix. 5) of the earth from which springs forth the swer best, to assume that the words are a sample of the fountain (Ps. Ixxiv. 15) of the waters of the Red Sea (Ps. oracle-like, lapidary style (Lapidarstils) and thence no lxxviii. 13); it is said that a besieged city is split when grammatically correct construction is to be looked for. it is taken, that is, a breach is made in its walls (2 Ki. Did the words in question stand after 9 b, whither Lowth Ixv. 4; Jer. xxxix. 2; lii. 7; Ezek. xxvi. 10). In the last- has transposed them, then indeed the disposition of named sense it is used 2 Chr. xxxii. 1, where it is said the sentence would be more correct, but the construcof Sennacherib: " He encamped against the fenced ci- tion would be monotonous. 0x7 occurring four times ties and thought pipe Dypa}," where the constructio in succession would sound bad. By the interposition

of ver. 8 b, this evil is avoided. Thus manifoldness is praegnans is important to the exposition of our passage.

combined with equilibrium. And thus, without igThe word however is also used of a land. 2 Chron. xxi.

noring the difficulties, we will still recognize the pos17 we read of the Philistines and Arabians : “they came

sibility of the passage being genuine as it is, against up into Judah, 171Yp?"), and carried away all the sub

which there is grammatically nothing to oppose (comp. stance," etc. Beside the present place, the Hiph. occurs THOLUCK, Die Propheten und ihre Weissagungen, and Ewonly 2 Kings iii. 26, where it is used of an intended ALD). Examples of the construction 19 Divvi 71a1 breaking forth on the part of an enclosed army. AC Gen. xl. 13, 19; Josh. i. 11; 2 Sam. xii. 22; Isa. xxi. 16; cording to all this, the use of the word for breaking Jer. xxviii. 3, 11; Am. iv. 7. nn is imp. Kal. from through, forcing a fortified city, seems to me to settle fractus est. xxx. 31; xxxi. 4; li. 6, etc.—Dyreby nina, the meaning. A land is forced, broken through, as well as a city, when the living wall that defends it, the de. comp. xvii. 1; xxiii. 1; Ixii. 10. fensive army is broken through. Thus the sense of our passage will be: let us break through it (the land

Ver. 9. Niph. 128? is firmum, stabilem, perennem esse of Judah) i. e., take it by breaking through the protect-|(xxii

. 23, 25; xxxiii. 16; xlix. 7; 1v. 3; Ix. 4). 'is pleing army, and thereby take it to ourselves. There lies onastic, but very expressive, and is to be treated as dein the expression, beside the pregnant construction, at pendent on an ideal verbum dicendi (Num. xxii. 29, 33 ; the same time a metonomy.

Ps. cxxviii. 4).


1. And it came to pass

with the xv. 27, reigned twenty years. How otherwise wind.–Vers. 1, 2. This war expedition of the could Pekah, according to Isa. vii, 1, wage war united Syrians and Ephraimites is mentioned 2 against Ahaz? How could Tiglath-Pileser, acKings xv. 37; xvi. 5 sq. and 2 Chr. xxviii. 5 sq. cording to 2 Kings xv. 29, whom Abaz summoned Were one to foHow the statement of 2 Kings xv. (2 Kings xvi. 7), in Pekah’s day, still occupy the 30, then Pekah did not at all live to see Ahaz. region of Ephraim and carry the people away? For there it reads: "And Hoshea the son of Elah But the statement of 2 Kings xv. 30b proves itmade a conspiracy against Pekah, and smote him self false in other ways. For, vers. 32, 33, we and slew him, and reigned in his stead in the read that Jotham became king in the second year twentieth year of Jotham the son of Uzziah.” If of Pekah, and reigned sixteen years. AccordPekah was killed after Jotham's death under ingly Jotham must have died in the eightecnth Ahaz, it must any way read “in the first year of year of Pekah. Therefore Pekah survived JoAhaz." But according to all other data, Pekah tham, and not Jotham Pekah, as ver. 30 gives the must undoubtedly have lived to see Ahaz. For impression. Hitzig (Gesch. d. Volkes Isr. I. p. 2 Kings xv. 1 it reads that A haz became king in 212) makes the original form of the statement to the seventeenth year of Pekah, who, according to be: "And he killed him in the twentieth year

of his reign, and became king in his stead;” but | 1!" (Judg. v. 3; Ps. ii. 2, gravis, augustus, princeps, the following “of Jotham the son of Uzziah,” etc., stand related in root and meaning, we would then are the superscription of ver. 32 sqq.

see this kingdom of Damascus also begin and end However this may be, the statement of ver. 30b with an Augustus. is in any case incorrect. Therefore we have here

Pekah, son of Remaliah, an otherwise unknown a plain example of the corruption of the text, unless we assume an inexact or erroneous use of ori- name, was ein of the king Pekahiah. LUTHER ginal sources.

translates the word by Ritter=“knight,” but it Pekah not only survived Jotham, but he lived means properly “chariot warrior,” because three during three years of Ahaz, because, according to always stood on a chariot (comp. Exod. xiv. 7: ver. 27, Pekah reigned twenty years, and in his xv. 4). It signifies a follower generally (2 Kings seventeenth year Ahaz became king. Therefore x. 25), as well as particularly a favored follower

, in these three years must occur the events related on whose hand the king leaned (2 Kings vii. 2, in Isa. vii. and viii. DRECHSLER says correctly, 17, 19). Pekah killed his master after a reign the spoiling of Ephraim, spoken of 2 Kings xv. of two years (2 Kings xv. 23 sqq.). Like all other 29, presupposes the conception, birth, and learn- rulers of the kingdom of Israel, “he did that ing to talk of “Hasten-spoil, Quick-prey” (Isa. which was evil in the sight of the LORD,” ver. viii. 3 sqq.); consequently one must say that the 28. Our passage is explained by the parallel attack of Rezin and Pekah must be located in the passages, 2 Kings xvi. 5 sqq. and 2 Chron. xxviii. first half of the three years that the latter lived in 5 sqq. common with Ahaz.

The words of 2 Kings xvi. 5 sqq. correspond Rezin was the last king of independent Syria, almost verbatim with Isa. vii. 1. Such difference for by his overthrow it bocame an Assyrian pro

as there is indicates that the author of 2 Kings vince. The founder of the kingdom of Syria of meant, not that Jerusalem itself, but only the king, Damascus was Rezin (ji??), who, having run away

was hard pressed, ---meaning, of course, the king from his lord Hadadeser, king of Syria of Zobah, author of 2 Kings drew from Isaiah, and not the

as representative of the land. Moreover that the gathered a horde of fighting men, and settled with reverse, appears to me beyond doubt. For 2 them in Damascus (1 Kings xi. 23 sqq.); From Kings is without doubt a much more recent book that period we find the Syrian power, hitherto di- than Isaiah. At most, Isaiah could only have vided into many small kingdoms, concentrated used one of the sources used by the writer of 2 under the king of Damascus. Rezin is followed

Kings. But why need the Prophet look into the by Hezion (jiin, if he is not identical with firm archives of the kingdom for a summary notice of as EWALD, Gesch. d. V. Isr. III. 151, and THE- an event of his own times, and known to all his NIUS, on 1 Kings xv. 19, conjecture); he by his contemporaries? Combining then the accounts son Tabrimon, who, according to 1 Kings xv. 19, of 2 Kings and 2 Chron. we obtain the following appears to have made a league with Abijam the facts: 1, the hostile incursion of Rezin and Pekah king of Judah, which Benhadad, son and succes into Judah; 2, a defeat of Ahaz by Rezin (2 Chr. sor of Tabrimon, renewed with king Asa; an un

xxviii. 5); 3, a defeat of Ahaz by Pekah (vers. theocratic proceeding, which, according to 2 Chr. 6–15); 4, the taking of Elath by the Syrians (2 xvi. 7, provoked the sharp censure of the prophet Kings xvi. 6); 5, an expedition of Rezin and PeHanani. We have, then, here the example of a kah against Jerusalem (Isa. vii. 1), with which league that a king of Judah made with the heathen also the notice Isa. vii. 2 of the fact that “Syria king of Syria in order to war upon Baasha, king has settled upon Ephraim” has more or less conof Israel, to which in addition must be observed nection. the grave fact that Benhadad at the very time was

The question arises : Is the expedition referred in league with Baasha, and consequently must to in our passage identical with that related 2 have been solicited to break an existing alliance. Kings and 2 Chron.? or if not, did it occur be

Thus the league between Pekah and Rezin fore or after the latter? At the first glance, inagainst Ahaz appears as a retribution for the deed, one is liable to regard Isa. vi. 1 as a brief, league that Asa had made with Benhadad against summary notice of all the transactions of that Baasha. That Benhadad, whom we may call | war.

But then it is surprising that this noticeBenhadad I., was suceeeded by Benhadad ÍI., of with the promises that follow it in close conwhom we read that he combined thirty-two kings nection--gives the impression that the war prounder his supreme command against Israel (1 gressed in a way wholly favorable for Judah ; Kings xx. 1 sqq.). Benhadad II. was succeeded whereas we know from the parallel passages by Hazael, who murdered his master (1 Kings that Judah suffered severe defeats and prodixix, 15; 2 Kings viii. 7 sqq.). Hazael was suc- gious loss. Therefore we cannot take our verse ceeded by Benhadad III., his son (2 Kings xiii. as such a parallel and summary account. But 24); finally Rezin succeeded him; his name pos- it is impossible also that what our passage resibly is identical with that of Rezin, the founder counts preceded the defeats of which we have acof the dynasty, as GESENIUS ( Thesaur. p. 1307) count in the parallel passage. For then the stateand BAIHINGER (HERZOG's Real- Encyclop. VII. ments of our passages would equally disagree with p. 44) conjecture. The sounds 1 and 3, as is well the event. They would announce only good, known, being nearly related (ds and' ts; comp. whereas in reality great misfortunes occurred. pyy and pro, na8 and 121, phy, and 158%, to an expedition that occurred after the events of

We must therefore assume that our passage refers and Aram. Wy!, etc.). But if piz? and 1977 (Prov. 2 Kings xvi. 5 sqq., and 2 Ch. xxviii. 5,599.; xiv. 28, where the word is parallel with 7??) and Rezin and Pekah operated at first separately, as




is expressly indicated, 2 Chr. xxviii. 5. The entire fulness of the divine judgments, that the former, likely, traversed the East of Judah's ter- Prophets had to announce: whereas 310 Jashub ritory and proceeded at once south toward Elath. opens up the glorious prospect of the final delivBut Pekah engaged in battle with Ahaz to the

[The name means a remnant may return. north of Jerusalem, with the bad result for Ahaz, -TR.] Comp. i. 8, 9; iv. 3; vi, 13; x. 20 sqq. related 2 Chr. xxviii. 5 b sqq. After these pre- (especially ver. 21 where the words Jiv, Nw exliminary successes, Rezin and Pekah united their armies and marched against Jerusalem itself. pressly recur). We have shown in commenting This is the expedition of which our passage in- on Jer, iii. sqq.; xxxi. 16-22 what an important forins us, and this is the meaning of inj ver. 2. part the notion 310 to return,” plays in JerThe expedition, however, did not succeed. For emiah's prophecy. The significance of ShearAhaz had applied to the King of Assyria, and jashub's name, however, makes us notice, too, the news that the latter was in motion in response

that the Prophet himself bears a significant name.

salvation of Jehovah.And that to the request of Ahaz, moved the allied kings to hasten home into their countries. Thus is ex the proclamation of salvation, comfort is the chief plained why Isaiah vii. 1 speaks only of an in- contents of His prophecies Israel has long known, tended war against the city of Jerusalem, and and acknowledged. An old rabbinical saying, why the author of 2 Kings who mistook our pass- quoted by ABARB. reads noong 193 17938 193 age for a general notice, and used it as such, re

comp. Introduction.

Threatening and consolasorted to the alterations we have noticed (viz., the tion therefore go to meet Ahaz embodied in the omission of "against it,” and “ "they besieged persons of Isaiah and his son, yet so that conAhaz, but could not overcome him" 2 Kings solation predominates, as also the words that xri. 5). This is essentially the view of CASPARI Isaiah has to speak are for the most part consolatoo (in the Universitäts-Programm über den sy- tory. Had Israel only been susceptible of this risch-ephraimitischen Krieg, Christiani, 1849), with consolation! which DELITZSCH agrees (in his review of the The locality where Isaiah was to meet the king foregoing writing in REUTER's Repert., April, is mentioned xxxvi. 2, and in the same words. 1851, reprinted in his commentary).

There, Rabshakeh, the envoy of Sennacherib, acIn regard to ver. 1 b, a double matter is to be cording to that passage, held his interview with noticed : 1. that it does not say “ he could not the men that Hezekiah sent out to him. It must, take it, or make a conquest of it" or the like; therefore, have been an open, roomy spot, suited but he could not make war upon it. That must for conferences. According to the researches of plainly mean that Rezin and Pekah could not ROBINSON, against which the results of KRAFFT, find even time to begin the siege. 2. The clause WILLIAMS and Hitzik prove not to be tenable, "he could not,” etc., must be construed as antici- (comp. ARNOLD in HERZOG's R. Encycl. XVIII. pation of the result, which the Prophet, after the p. 632 sq.), the upper pool is identical with the well-known Hebrew manner of writing history, Birket-el Mamilla, which in the west of Jerusalem joins on to the account of the beginning. What lies in the basin that forms the beginning of the follows then ver. 2, and after, is thus, as to time, Vale of Hinnom, about 2100 feet from the Jaffa to be thought of as coming between ver. 1 a Gate. Moreover this pool is identical with “ the and b.

old pool mentioned xxii. 11. Hezekiah, when To the house of David.- Ver. 2. This ex he saw that Sennacherib was coming (2 Chr. pression (found again in Isaiah only, ver. 13 and xxxii. 2 sqq.), stopped up the fountains outside xxii

. 22) can, indeed, mean the race of David, of the city, and conducted the water of the foun(comp. 1 Sam. xx. 16; 1 Kings xii. 16, 20, 26, tain of Gihon and that of the upper-pool in a new etc.); and ver. 13 the plural yox, “hear ye, conduit between the two walls (xxii. 11 coll. 2 seems really to commend this meaning. But the Kings xx. 20; 2 Chr. xxxii. 30), in contrast with singular suffix in 137 and iny “his heart," " his which it was that the upper-pool was called the

older. The fuller's field, the place where the people," proves that the meaning is not just the fullers washed, fulled and dried their stuffè, must same. Therefore it seems to me that “ house of have been in the neighborhood of a pool. Now David” here means the palace, the royal resi- JOSEPHUS (Bell. Jud. V. 4, 2) speaks of a uvõua dence. There was the seat of government, the yvadéwç, “fuller's monument," that must have king's cabinet; thither was the intelligence had its position north of the city. For this reabrought. It is as when one says: it was told the

son many (WILLIAMS, KRAFFT, Hirzig) look cabinet of St. James, or the Sublime Porte. Of for the fuller's field in the neighborhood of the course the expression involves reference to the fuller's monument. But fuller's field and fuller's living possessor of the government building, and monument need not necessarily be near one anthe governing power, the king. Hence the lan- other. For the latter does not necessarily conguage proceeds with pronouns (suffixes) in the

cern the place of the fullers as such, but may singular.

have been erected on that spot to a fuller or by a 2. Then said the Lord. the son of Re- fuller for any particular reason unknown to us. maliah.-Vers. 3 and 4. The Prophet receives And anyway the existence of a pool in ancient cornmand to go and meet the king, who had times north of Jerusalem cannot be proved. gone out, and thus whose return was to be looked Therefore the fuller's field lay probably in the for. But he must not go alone, but in company neighborhood of the upper-pool west of the city. with his son, Shear-jashub. The son is no where

Ahaz had probably a similar end in view at else mentioned. The name signifies the chief the upper pool to Hezehiah’s, according to 2 Chr. contents of all prophecy, according to its two as- xxxii. 2 sqq. It was to deprive the enemy of all pects. In the notion 78 Shear, is indicated the fountains, brooks and pools, and yet preserve


them for the use of the city. The end was ob- structed in pyramidal form : Syria, Damascus, tained by covering them over above and conduct- Rezin,-Ephraim, Samaria, Pekah. But the ing them into the city. Perhaps in this respect third member is quite conformed to the first in Ahaz did preparatory work for Hezekiah (comp. reference to what is aflirmed of the subjects. ARNOLD, I. c.). The Prophet warned the king Thus it says: the head of Syria is Damascus, and against sinning through unbelieving despondency. the head of Damascus is Rezin. And likewise; The expression " fear not, neither be faint- the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head hearted,” is here and Jer. li. 46, borrowed from of Samaria is Pekah. Saying that Damascus Deut. xx. 3, where it is said to the people how had dominion over Syria and Rezin over Dathey must conduct themselves when they stand mascus, accurately designates the limits of opposed in fight to superior forces of the enemy. the power of Rezin and Damascus. They may The expression occurs only in the three places command within these limits and no named. Why Ahaz should not fear is expressed Therefore they have not the power to set a king in this, that the enemy that threatened him are over Judah according to their pleasure. Morecompared to quenched firebrands and stumps of over, if Damascus is head of Syria and Rezin torches. Two firebrands are mentioned in the the head of Damascus, the question arises, too: first clause, and yet the idea is distributed over what sort of a head is it? Is it a strong, mighty three bearers, Rezin, Syria and the son of Rema- head to which no other is equal, that is therefore liah, We see that the Prophet takes prince and safe in its sphere of power, and unassailable people as one; and here he names the two halves in it? This question must be negatived. For of the whole, as instantly afterwards ver. 5, how can it be said of Damascus, the great, beauEphraim and the son of Remaliah, but the second tiful, and rich city, but still the profane and time he does not mention Rezin at all, but only heathen city, that she enjoys the privilege of opposes Syria to Ephraim and its king. There being unassailable; that she is able under all appears to me to lie in this an expression of con circumstances to protect and maintain her dotempt for Rezin, who first is named in connection minion? And what of Rezin? Is he an elect? with his nation and the second time, not at all, Can his name give a guaranty of the permanence 80 that he plainly appears as a secondary person of the region he rules ? Not at all. Quite otherOn the other hand contempt was expressed for wise is it in Judah, where Jerusalem, the city of Pekah by calling him only the son of Remaliah. God, stands opposed to the city of Damascus, and But what is the son of Remaliah, a man utterly the theocratic king of David's line to the prounknown, opposed to the son of David !

fane, heathen ruler. Behind Jerusalem and the 3. Because Syria shall not be estab- house of David, stands the Lord as the true head lished.-Vers. 5-9. The conclusion of the pre-in chief of Israel. What is then the head of mise “because Syria, etc., have taken evil coun- Syria, and Damascus compared with the head of sel,etc., begins ver. 7, “thus saith the Lord.” Judah and Jerusalem ? Thus is explained why The evil counsel is set forth ver. 6. “It shall not Judah has nothing to fear from Rezin and Syria. come to pass,” says literally, what is expressed But of Ephraim ver. 9, the same thing is af

= it shall not stand.firmed. Plainly the Prophet would intimate that For there underlies the latter expression the figure Pekah and Samaria, too, have only a sphere of of a prostrate body that attains to standing, there- power limited to Ephraim, and that Samaria is fore gets to its feet and to life. Comp. xiv. 24; not to be brought into comparison with Jeruxxviii. 18; xlvi. 10; Prov. xix. 21. Had this salem, nor the son of Remaliah with the son of promise been given at the first beginning of the David, that consequently, Ephraim is essentially Syro-Ephraimite war, it would have found the same as the heathen nation Syria, and just as no complete, corresponding fulfilment. For, as

little to be dreaded by Judah. Thus the meaning shown above, the counsel did not remain quite

of ver. 8 a, and 9 a, as also their relation to unaccomplished. Precisely the yp.??? (ver. 6), two other members ver. 8 6, 9 b? If we had only

one another is perfectly clear. But what of the “the forcing a breach," succeeded, according to to do with 9 b, it would be an easy affair; for it 2 Chr. xxviii. 5. Hence we must, in accordance contains a very appropriate conclusion to 8 a, too with nnt ver. 2, assume, that Isaiah ad- 9 a. It is, if I may so speak, double-edged. dressed this prophecy to Ahaz after the beginning Judah is not to appropriate unconditionally the of the second act of that war.

comfort of the promise given to it. Only if it For the head of Syria, etc.- Ver. 8. These believes and obeys its Lord, need it have nothing words are very difficult. Especially has the to fear from Syria and Ephraim. But if it does second clause of ver. 8, given great offense both not believe in the Lord, it shall itself fall to by its contents and by its position. Many expo- pieces as the others. It cannot be said that sitors therefore attempt, either to alter the text, anything essential would be wanting if ver. 8 6 or to reject the words 71yai to bys as a gloss. were not there. Neither can it be said, that in These, in some instances very ingenious, at that case an essential member would be abstracted tempts may be found recapitulated in GESENIUS. from the outward structure. For 8 a and 9 a The Prophet had said, ver. 6, that Syria and correspond; but 9 6 is the one conclusion that Ephraim had the purpose of making the son of corresponds to both these menibers in common. Tabeal king in Judah. That shall not come to Only if 9 b, were wanting, would there be an espass, says ver. 7. This assertion is established sential member missing. For then it would apby the double statement vers. 8 and 9. The latter pear strange that 9 a, should have no conclusion consist of two members each, of which the first like 8 a, and an appropriate termination to the correspon is to the third, and the second to the whole address would be wanting. But even if fourth. The first and third member are con- | 8 b appear unnecessary in the context, that is

תקום figuratively by לא

[blocks in formation]

that it is generally out of place. Many | xx. 3; xxi. 16; xxxviii. 5; comp. Ezk. iv. 5 Imed this, because it contradicts ver. 16, sqq.; etc.). Whatever may be thought of the

does not suit the cheering character reason of the matter, the fact itself cannot be deIl ress, and because the Prophets anyway nied; and I do not comprehend how DIESTEL ve such exact figures. As regards the (in KNOBEL'S Komm. 4 Aufl

. p. 66) can contend rt.

ver. 16, it was long ago pointed out against this reality, on which everything here dethat to le desertion of the land, that was the pends. conseque pe of the Syro-Ephraimite war (2 In order that Judah may partake of the blessKings x v. 29), in fact to the deportation by ing of this promise, it must itself fulfil a condiSalmanaksar, not sixty-five years, but a much less tion; the condition especially on which depends number of years elapsed. Hence, after the ex the blessed fulfilment of all promises : it must ample of PiscATOR, JACOB CAPPELLUS and others, believe. If it believes not, which, alas, was the USHER (Ann. V. T., at the year 3,327) proposed actual case, then it will not continue to exist to take as the concluding point of the sixty-five itself. years, the planting of Assyrian subjects in the [J. A. ALEXANDER on ver. 4. The comparideseried region of Ephraim (2 Kings xvii. 24) son of Rezin and Pekah to the tails or ends of which, according to Ezr. iv. 2, took place under firebrands, instead of firebrands themselves, is not Esar-haddon. This fact, which indeed may be a mere expression of contempt, nor a mere intiregarded as the sealing of the doom of Ephraim mation of their approaching fate, as BARNES and in regard to its existence as a state, must coin- HENDERSON explain it, but a distinct allusion to cide with the time of Manasseh, and can with the the evil which they had already done, and which carrying away this king, which according to the should never be repeated. If the emphasis were assumption of the Jewish chronology in Seder only on the use of the word tails, the tail of anyOlam. p. 67, took place in the twenty-second thing else would have been qually appropriate. year of his reign. This would of course bring the smoking remnant of a firebrand implies a out the sixty-five years.

previous flame, if not a conflagration. This con14 years of Ahaz.

firms the conclusion before drawn, that Judah 29 66 Hezekiah.

had already been ravaged. 22 “ Manasseh.

Pekah being termed simply the son of Remaliah, is supposed by some to be intended to express contempt for him, though the difference

may after all, be accidental, or have only a rhyThis reckoning, indeed, rests on no sure data, thmical design. The patronymic, like our Engbut it is still possible, and we can meanwhile lish surname, can be used contemptuously only quiet ourselves and say: if the Prophet meant when it indicates ignoble origin, in which sense the sixty-five years so, there exists no contradic- it may be applied to Pekah, who was a usurper tion of ver. 16, and iyn, shall be forsaken, is not On ver. 5. The suppression of Pekah's proper to be taken in an absolute sense. And the com name in this clause, and of Rezin's altogether in fort that Ahaz was to find in the ruin of Ephraim the first, has given rise to various far-fetched exthat was to happen only after sixty-five years, planations, though it seems in fact, to show that was this, that he could say: a city devoted to ihe use of names in the whole passage is rather remediless ruin, even though not in a very short euphonic or rhythmical than significant. time, is not to be feared. But as for the exact On ver. 9. Another rendering equally natural data of figures, THOLUCK (D. Proph. u. ihre to that of Luther (viz. : if ye believe not, then ye Weiss., 1861, p. 116 sqq.), has proved the ex- abide not) is; "if ye do not believe (it is) beistence of such in the Old Testament (xvi. 14;. cause ye are not to be established.”]

65 years.

b) Isaiah in the bosom of the royal family giving a sign by announcing

the Virgin's Son Immanuel.

CHAP. VII. 10-25. 10 MOREOVER the LORD spake again unto Ahaz, saying, 11 Ask thee a sign of the LORD thy God;

Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above. 12, 13 But Ahaz said, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the LORD; And he said,

Hear ye now, O house of David;
Is it a small thing for you to weary men,
But will ye weary my God also ?

« PoprzedniaDalej »