Obrazy na stronie
[blocks in formation]

indeed know of prophecies of which she was the authoress, but she, along with other things of the Prophet's family, was set for a sign and wonder (ver. 18).

Our exposition of vii. 14 of itself shows that the present history is not coincident with vii. 10 sqq., and therefore that Maher-shalal is not identical with Immanuel. Yet the present narrative is nearly related to vii. 10 sqq. In both, pregnancy and the birth of a son are pledges of deliverance. In both, a stage of development in the child is made the measure that defines the period of the deliverance. But a child can say father and mother, sooner than it can distinguish between good and evil. If then, as also the place of the passage in the book, indicates, what is now narrated, took place somewhat later than the events vii. 10 sqq., it agrees very well. Both have the same objective end, viz., the rendering harmless Syria and Ephraim. Therefore the later one must use the shorter time measure. As Pekah and Rezin lived during the events prophesiod here, yet the former ; B. c. 739, so the transactions related here must fall between B. c. 743 and 739. The king of Assyria did not at that time destroy Samaria. He only desolated a few border regions (2 Kings xv. 29). But as we showed at vii. 17, that the prophecy contemplated two events, inwardly related, but separated as to time, so it is here. That first, preliminary de. vastation of the region of Ephraim bears the later one (2 Kings xvii. 6) so really in it, that the Prophet is justified in comprehending both together.



CHAP. VIII. 5–8. 5 ... The LoRD spake also unto me again, saying,

6 For as much as this people refuseth The waters of Shiloah that go softy,

And rejoice "in Rezin and Remaliah's son; 7 Now therefore, behold, the Lord bringeth up upon them

The waters of the river, strong and many, even the king of Assyria,
And he shall come up over all his channels,

And go over all his banks;

and all his glory ;

8 And he shall pass “through Judah; he shall overflow and go over,

He shall reach even to the neck;

And "the stretching out of his wings shall fill

The breadth of thy land, O Immanuel.

* Heb. the fulness of the breadth of thy land shall be the stretching out of his wings.

b with.

* contenins.

[ocr errors]
[merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][merged small][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors][subsumed][merged small]

1. This section has the external mark of a supplement in the transition formula “the LoRD spake also again,” which occurs again only vii. 10, and which here as well as there intimates that an interval occurred between these words and what goes before. But the contents, too, show that we have no immediate and necessary amplification of the foregoing words and deeds before us. Nothing more is said of the son of the Prophet. Rather the language turns, suddenly against the Ephraimites who contemned the quiet fountain of Shiloah, i. e. David's kingdom, and rejoiced in communion with Rezin and the son of Remaliah (ver. 6). Therefore the floods of the Euphrates, which the Prophet himself explains as meaning the king of Assyria, shall overflow Ephraim (ver. 7), but of course Judah also, the land of Immanuel (ver. 8). The mention of Rezin and Pekah, the calling Judah land of Immanuel, and the threatening of overflow by ARsyria, prove that these .# belong to the same period as the preceding chief prophecies. And as the expression “Immanuel ” presup the transactions narrated vii. 10, the insertion of this section at this place is completely explained.

2. The Lord Remaliah's son.—Vers. 5, 6. Most authorities agree that the fountain of Shiloah or Siloam is on the south side of Jerusa

[ocr errors]

sendeth the springs,” Ps. civ. 10; hence &TegražHévoc “sent” Jno. ix. 7; comp. EwALD 3 156 a). It occurs only here, John ix. 7 and Luke xiii. 4, in which last place is told of the tower of Si: loam (so LXX and New Testament, Aqu- and SYMM., THEoD. spell the name Xizoá: VULg.: Siloe). Yet the name not which the noon man? “pool of Siloah,” Neh. iii. 15, bears is very probably identical with our Shiloah. The descent between the fountain of Mary above and the fountain of Siloam is very little, therefore the flow is very gentle and soft.

The weak brooklet, welling up at the foot of Moriah and Zion, represents the unobservable nature of the kingdom of God in the period of its earthly humility. It recalls the form of a servant which the Lord assumed, and the “I am meek and lowly in heart” (Matth. xi. 29). This feature is prominent in all the stages of the his. tory of salvation. Outwardly Israel was the least of all nations (Deut. vii.7); Bethlehem was the least of the cities of Judah (Mic. v. 1); David was the youngest among his brothers, and his father supposed he must be of no account at the election of a king (1 Sam. xvi. 11 sqq.). So, too, at the time of our present history, the kingdom of David was very small and weak amid the world-powers. If now and then it arose to greater power, that makes but one resemblance more to

, the intermittent fountain of Shiloah.

And rejoice, etc. The passage is easily ex

plained if one only notices that the Prophet does spreading out its wings, to which he is evidently

not till ver. 8 represent the swelling stream as overflowing also the territory of Judah. Then “upon them ’’ ver. 7 means those whom the As

rian stream, that comes in from the north, overows first. That is evidently the Ephraimites. Therefore by the people wer. 6, to whom “upon them " refers back, must, at least primarily, be understood the nation of the Ten Tribes. The nation Israel, then, i. e. Ephraim looks down contemptuously on the kingdom of Judah as on a weak flowing brooklet, and meanwhile with proud self-complacency rejoices in its own king and in the alliance with the Syrian king that added to his strength. This haughtiness shall not escape the avenging Nemesis. From the Euphrates shall mighty floods of water overflow first Ephraim and then Judah. [“To understand this it is necessary to remark that the Euphrates annual{{ overflows its banks.”—BARNEs]. That by this is meant the king of Assyria with all his lorious army, Isaiah himself proceeds to explain. t is a proof that the Prophet before this had the territory of Israel in mind, that here he makes so o the trespassing of the waters into Judah's territory, the spreading beyond its borders. Iu ver. 8 b, the Prophet by a glorious figure compares the volumes of water to a bird

moved by the fact that the floods of water mean army hordes. Accordingly he designates the wings of the army as the wings of the extended flood. Because H. space covered by the expanded wings coincides with the breadth of the land, so it may be said that the stretching out of the wings is at the same time the filling up of the land. It is very significant that the Prophet closes his address so emphatically with the word “Immanuel.” He signifies thus that the land is Immanuel's, and that consequently the violence is done to Immanuel. It is plain that Immanuel is written as a proper name, from the suffix in TXTR. Yet most editions separate the words, and several versions too, as LXX. and ARAM., translate accordingly. The occasion for this is the, of course, correct notion that in the word there is an intimation of comfort that is to be the stay of Israel in that great tribulation. But evidently the Prophet has immediately in mind a person, whom he addresses. He turns to Him who is predicted in the birth of that child vii. 14. Although He is a person of the future, still the Prophet knows Him as one already present. How else could he turn to Him with this lamentation? Herein, then, lies a preparation for what the Prophet says of the promised one in the predicates of ix. 5 (6).


CHAPTER VIII. 9–15. 9 : "Associate yourselves, O ye people, and ye shall be broken in pieces;

And give ear, all ye of far countries:

Gird yourselves, "and ye shall be broken in pieces: Gird yourselves, and ye shall be broken in pieces. 10 Take counsel together, and it shall come to nought;

Speak the word, and it shall not stand:

For God is with us.

11 For the LoRD spake thus to me *with a strong hand,
“And instructed me that I should not walk in the way of this people, saying,

12 Say ye not, A confederacy,

*To all them to whom this people shall say, A confederacy;

Neither fear ye their fear, nor be afraid.

13 Sanctify the Lord of Hosts himself;

And let him be your fear, and let him be your dread.

14 And he shall be for a sanctuary;

But for a stone of stumbling and for a rock of offence

To both the houses of Israel,

For a gin and for a snare to the inhabitants of Jerusalem.

15 And many among them shall stumble, And fall, and be broken, And be snared, and be taken.

[ocr errors][merged small][merged small][merged small]

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL. On ver, 9. Ayon. The forms and meanings of the roots this root has been transferred the meaning, too, of jo, Wy", y)" and yo" cross each other in a peculiar man. Although originally Jon has the meaning matum es.” ner. Ay" can only come from the root yyy ; but to U appears from the import Niph. yon. (Prov. xi. 15; xiii

20) which can only be derived from a root "y, yet this root never occurs in Kal., but all Kal forms that mean "to be evil” are to be derived from a root joyn (comp. - r Jon Num. xi. 10, then the adjective yo), and perhaps, too, + the forms Tyn Dent. xv. 9; 2 Sam. xix. 8 and infin. yon r Eccl. vii. 3). On the other hand pyth has undoubtedly the meaning “to break" (Ps. ii. 9; Jer. xi. 16; xv. 12, etc.). We must therefore choose here between the meanings “ be evil” and “break.” With DREchsler and others, I prefer the latter, because “be wicked ” and “break in pieces” involve no contradiction; for wherefore may not what is wicked also break in pieces? [“GEsENIus in his latest lexicons gives this verb its usual sense of being evil, malignant, which is also expressed by LUTHER (seid bose, ihr Völker). It is here equivalent to do your worst.” J. A. ALExANDER.].— prop r : ..." frequent in Isaiah (x. 3; xiii. 5; xvii. 13; xxx. 27; xlvi. 11; plural D'Prop xxxiii. 17).--The double imperatives inn) intonn sustain an adverbial relation to one another: break up yet break in pieces yourselves; gird ye yourselves, and spite of it break in pieces. Comp. Gesex. 8 130, 2. The former word seems to me not to mean bellum parare, for the war is far progressed; but in accord with the proper vis vocabuli, the girding the joins, bracing oneself up as men are wont to do in the midst of an attack. on ver, 10. Yıy only here and Judg. xix. 30. On myy r --comp. on v. 19. Pual nEn only here in Isaiah (Jer. xxxiii. 21 : Zech. xi. 11).-Other forms of "Y"; ; xiv. 27; xxiv. 5, 19; xxxiii. 8; xliv. 25. On ver. 11. TORT, wherever else it occurs (2 Chr. xii. r: ... 1; xxvi. 16; Dan. xi. 2) means “the being strong,” and is used everywhere of the fortified power of a potentate. Trn npin is therefore “the hand being strong.” It is the hand of God that comes over the prophets (Ezek. i. 3; iii. 22; viii. 1; xxxiii. 22; xxxvii. 1; xl. 1) and in fact our expression signifies the condition that Ezekiel describes with the words men *y " or iii. 14.— 7 Iry -r -: onen cannot be the perf, or it must read "..]" D". But the imperf stands as jussive with the Vav, consec. (Comp. Ewald, 2 347 a). "J"D") is, then, not co-ordinate with "ox TD as KNobel and even EwALD would have it; but it continues and declares the object of "n npin2, co-ordinate with the latter, subordinate to the former

(DELITzsch. As regards the form, the imperf. Yb" un

derlies it, which Hos. X. 10 is used in the first person.—

The preposition p is to be treated as dependent on the notion of “holding back, restraining,” contained in "J"D" (constructio praegnans).

On ver. 12. 12) 95% does not designate the object that is given a name. For then the second member must read: nvo, 1% min Dyn now. But, as Darcus on justly remarks, h before 92 = darauf him, bei, “at,” “with,” and ‘72 has the meaning cunque (compare ny - %2-ox Prov. xvii. 8, “whither-so-ever"). Not so often as those, not incessantly shall they say "hop, as if there were nothing in the world to fear but this. Rory only here in Isaiah. yonyn Hiph. in Isaiah also ver. 13 and xxix. 23. Kal. ii. 19, 21; xlvii. 12. From xxix. 23 it is seen that Isaiah uses the word in the sense of “timere aliquid ;” in our passage it means “to fear” and ver, 13 “to affright.” Thus it appears that Isaiah uses the Hiph. sometimes as indirect, sometimes as direct causative, and then uses the latter in a transitive sense.

On ver, 13. In DDNYp Isaiah has evidently in mind Gen. ix. 2; Deut. xi. 25.

On ver. 14. to Tpp (again in Isa. xvi. 12; lx. 13; lxiii. 18) means sanctuary generally, here evidently with the additional notion of asylum (comp. 1 Kings i. 50 sq.;

[ocr errors][ocr errors][merged small][ocr errors][ocr errors][ocr errors]


1. Having reproved the perverse policy of the earthly-minded Israel, the Prophet proclaims to the nations conspiring against Judah that they, the breakers-in-pieces, shall themselves be broken in pieces (vers. 9, 10). Then he says—turning to the spiritually-minded Israel—the Lord has emphatically warned them against the ways of the fleshly-minded (ver. 11) and forbidden them to regard the conspiracy of the enemies as most to be dreaded (ver. 12). Jehovah ought to be feared (ver. 13). He is to the one a sanctuary (asylum), to the others, a stone of stumbling and a snare (ver. 14, 15).

2. Associate——God is with us.—Vers.

9, 10. These words are addressed to the D'Oy

9, is contrasted with “this people,” ver, 6. The Prophet plainly addresses, nations, that arm themselves against the land of Immanuel, devise plans, issue commands. Nothing shall come of all this. Comparing vii. 7, it is seen that Syria and Ephraim must be meant here. . A remarkable contrast is put, when he that has broken others to pieces himself breaks to pieces. Syria and Ephraim had already done Judah considerable harm (comp. on vii. 1, 2); ver, 9, they are challenged to prepare still more, but spite of the breaking already accomplished, and these first attempts, they shall themselves be broken to pieces. The Prophet moreover summons distant nations to take notice of this for their own warning. The clause: “give ear—countries” is a

[ocr errors]

parenthesis. As the Prophet repeats the words of vii. 7 “and it shall not stand,” with little alteration, he intimates that he has the same matter in his mind. And in fact vii. 5 sq., speaks of “evil counsel” on the part of Syria and Ephraim against Judah, the land of Immanuel, as here of “taking counsel together,” and “speaking a word.” By this arises the conspiracy (nop) spoken of ver, 12, which can mean nothing but


the alliance of the two states named. *s opy 2. For the third and last time we have the words Immanuel. They must certainly be read separate here as a clause. They express the idea of the name as an independent judgment. The world-power must shiver on the rock Israel, for it is thereby the strong rock in that God is with it. But this strong rock is not the 'Iopa.)2 cap&txào, but the 'Iapajo, Twevuartkóc [not the fleshly Israel, but the spiritual Israel]. Comp. Ps. ii.

3. For the Lord——your dread.—Vers. 11-13. , Judah is safe from the breaker-in-pieces, for God is with it (ver. 10). That is, in a certain sense, not unconditionally. For the Lord will be an asylum only to those who fear and sanctify Him; but to others, who fear men more than Him, He will be their fall. “For the LoRD spake thus,” etc. : “for,” relates to the thought contained in the words Immanuel, “God is with us.” This thought is both established and limited by what follows. For God is with that part of the people only that fears Him above all things, loves and trusts Him alone. Therefore the Prophet says that this word of the Lord was directed to him. But he is representative of the believing Israel. Therefore ver. 12 continues with “say ye not,” and those addressed are expressly distinguished from “this people,” ver. 11.

“Ye shall not say conspiracy.”—Ver. 12. It is impossible that the Prophet can mean to say: “Ye shall not call everything conspiracy that people call conspiracy l’” For what sort of confederations did they incorrectly call conspiracies 2 May, perhaps, Pekah's alliance with Rezin be justified here? Or is some conspiracy of the Prophet and his followers against Ahaz (RooBDA) approved of? Or, are the believing Israelites warned against taking part in conspiracies (HoFMANN, DRECHslER), which does not the least lie in the words? According to vii. 2, the heart of Ahaz, and his people quaked like trees before the wind, when intelligence came to Jerusalem of the union of Syria with Ephraim. At that time, assuredly, the political wiseacres might be seen in every corner putting their heads together, and anxiously whispering: noP nvp, “conspiracy, conspiracy.” They called the aili. ance of Pekah with Rezin a Typ and saw therein, of course with some justice, the chief danger of Judah. Thus, the Prophet adds, “and what they fear shall not ye fear.” It must therefore have been a conspiracy that was the subject of fear to the mass of the nation of Judah. The meaning then is that men ought not to say “conspiracy” so often, not so incessantly to have this word in their months, and make the conspiracy the matter of greatest concern.

4. Sanctify be taken.—Vers. 13–15. Here begins the antithesis, that says what ought to be. They ought to sanctify Jehovah, (comp.

xxix. 23, the only other instance of this Hiph.); He ought to be the object of fear, the terror-maker. In such a case He will be for man a safe, sheltering, holy asylum .." . Ps, xv. 1; xviii. 3; xxiii. 5; lxxxiv. 5). But He will be a stone of stumbling to those that fear Him not. Therefore the two houses of Israel, Judah and Ephraim, shall be destroyed just by the LoBD. It would have been better for this fleshly Israel, had it never known the LoRD. Jerusalem is mentioned expressly, because, as capital city, its example had great influence. To it the Lord will be a snare.

[J. A. ALEXANDER on vers. 12-14. “YP, ac.

cording to etymology and usage, is a treasonable combination or conspiracy. It is elsewhere commonly applied to such a combination on the part of "..." against their rulers (2 Kings xi. 14; xii. 21; xiv. 19; xv. 30). It is not strictly applicable, therefore, to the confederacy of Syria and Israel against Judah (GESEN1Us, Rose.NMULLER, HENDERSON, etc.), nor to that of Ahaz with the king of Assyria (BARNEs, etc.). It would be more appropriate to the factious combinations among the Jews themselves (ABEN EzRA, KIMCH1), if there were any trace of these in history. The correct view seems to be: that the opposition of the Prophet and his followers to seeking foreign aid, viz.: Assyrian, as a violation of duty to jehovah, like the conduct of Jeremiah during the Babylonian siege, was regarded by the king and his adherents as a treasonable combination to betray them to their enemies. But God commands not to regard the cry of trea. son or conspiracy, nor to share the real or pretended terrors of the unbelievers.” On ver, 14. U.JPP. “Although the temples

r of the gods were regarded as asylums by the Greeks and Romans, no such usage seems to have prevailed among the Christians till the time of Constantine (BINGHAM's, Orig. Eccles. viii. 11, 1). As to the Jews, the only case which has been cited to establish such a practice seems to prove the contrary. So far was the altar from protecting Joab, that he was not even dragged away, but killed on the spot. [The same obtains with 1 Kings i. 50 sq., cited by NAEGELsBACH. —TR.]. The word was meant to bear the same relation to v"Pn (in ver. 13) that snip bears to sn'n and "Typ to sonyn. God was the only o object to be dreaded, feared and sanctified, i.e., regarded as a holy being in the widest and the most emphatic sense. Thus explained to Top corresponds almost exactly to the Greek 13 axton, the term applied to Christ by the angel who announced His birth (Luke i. 35). In 1 Pet. ii. 7, where this very passage is applied to Christ, #. Tuff seems to be employed as an equivalent to UTPD as here used. To others he is a stone of stumbling, but to you who believe He is # Tuff, something precious, something honored, something looked upon as holy. The same application of the words is made by Paul, Rom. ix. 33. These quotations seem to show that the Prophet's words have an extensive import, and are not to be restricted either to his own times or to the times of Christ. The doctrine of the text is, that even the most glorious exhibitions of God's holiness, i.e., of His infinite perfection, may occasion the destruction of the unbeliever."]

« PoprzedniaDalej »