EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL.

of his reign, and became king in his stead;" but the following "of Jotham the son of Uzziah," etc., are the superscription of ver. 32 sqq.

However this may be, the statement of ver. 306 is in any case incorrect. Therefore we have here a plain example of the corruption of the text, unless we assume an inexact or erroneous use of original sources.

(Judg. v. 3; Ps. ii. 2, gravis, augustus, princeps, stand related in root and meaning, we would then see this kingdom of Damascus also begin and end with an Augustus.

Pekah, son of Remaliah, an otherwise unknown name, was of the king Pekahiah. LUTHER 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 common with Ahaz.

For 2

The words of 2 Kings xvi. 5 sqq. correspond almost verbatim with Isa. vii. 1. Such difference as there is indicates that the author of 2 Kings meant, not that Jerusalem itself, but only the king, was hard pressed,-meaning, of course, the king as representative of the land. Moreover that the author of 2 Kings drew from Isaiah, and not the reverse, appears to me beyond doubt. Kings is without doubt a much more recent book than Isaiah. At most, Isaiah could only have used one of the sources used by the writer of 2 Kings. But why need the Prophet look into the archives of the kingdom for a summary notice of an event of his own times, and known to all his contemporaries? Combining then the accounts of 2 Kings and 2 Chron. we obtain the following facts: 1, the hostile incursion of Rezin and Pekah into Judah; 2, a defeat of Ahaz by Rezin (2 Chr. xxviii. 5); 3, a defeat of Ahaz by Pekah (vers. 6-15); 4, the taking of Elath by the Syrians (2 Kings xvi. 6); 5, an expedition of Rezin and Pekah against Jerusalem (Isa. vii. 1), with which also the notice Isa. vii. 2 of the fact that "Syria has settled upon Ephraim" has more or less connection.

Rezin was the last king of independent Syriafor by his overthrow it became an Assyrian province. The founder of the kingdom of Syria of Damascus was Rezin (¡?), who, having run away from his lord Hadadeser, king of Syria of Zobah, gathered a horde of fighting men, and settled with them in Damascus (1 Kings xi. 23 sqq.); From that period we find the Syrian power, hitherto divided into many small kingdoms, concentrated under the king of Damascus. Rezin is followed by Hezion (, if he is not identical with as EWALD, Gesch. d. V. Isr. III. 151, and THENIUS, on 1 Kings xv. 19, conjecture); he by his son Tabrimon, who, according to 1 Kings xv. 19, appears to have made a league with Abijam the king of Judah, which Benhadad, son and successor of Tabrimon, renewed with king Asa; an untheocratic proceeding, which, according to 2 Chr. xvi. 7, provoked the sharp censure of the prophet Hanani. We have, then, here the example of a league that a king of Judah made with the heathen king of Syria in order to war upon Baasha, king of Israel, to which in addition must be observed 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 beThus 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 II., 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 1gressed 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. 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 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. We must therefore assume that our passage refers

But

to an expedition that occurred after the events of צַעַר עָלַז and עָלַץ זָהַר and צָהַר זָעַק and צָעַק

and Aram.", etc.). But if and (Prov. xiv. 28, where the word is parallel with

7) and

2 Kings xvi. 5 sqq., and 2 Ch. xxviii. 5 sqq.; and we must conceive of the matter as follows: Rezin and Pekah operated at first separately, as

T

T:

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 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 erance. [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 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 inon Jer. iii. sqq.; xxxi. 16-22 what an important forms us, and this is the meaning of П ver. 2. part the notion 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 means "salvation of Jehovah." And that that the Prophet himself bears a significant name. to the request of Ahaz, moved the allied kings to hasten home into their countries. Thus is explained why Isaiah vii. 1 speaks only of an intended war against the city of Jerusalem, and why the author of 2 Kings who mistook our passage for a general notice, and used it as such, resorted to the alterations we have noticed (viz., the omission of "against it," and " they besieged Ahaz, but could not overcome him" 2 Kings xvi. 5). This is essentially the view of CASPARI too (in the Universitäts-Programm über den syrisch-ephraimitischen Krieg, Christiani, 1849), with which DELITZSCH agrees (in his review of the foregoing writing in REUTER's Repert., April, 1851, reprinted in his commentary). .

In regard to ver. 1 b, a double matter is to be noticed: 1. that it does not say "he could not take it, or make a conquest of it" or the like; but he could not make war upon it. That must plainly mean that Rezin and Pekah could not find even time to begin the siege. 2. The clause "he could not," etc., must be construed as anticipation of the result, which the Prophet, after the well-known Hebrew manner of writing history, joins on to the account of the beginning. What follows then ver. 2, and after, is thus, as to time, to be thought of as coming between ver. 1 a and b.

To the house of David.-Ver. 2. This expression (found again in Isaiah only, ver. 13 and xxii. 22) can, indeed, mean the race of David, (comp. 1 Sam. xx. 16; 1 Kings xii. 16, 20, 26, etc.), and ver. 13 the plural, “hear ye,' seems really to commend this meaning. But the singular suffix in ? and y "his heart," "his people," proves that the meaning is not just the same. Therefore it seems to me that "house of David" here means the palace, the royal residence. There was the seat of government, the king's cabinet; thither was the intelligence brought. It is as when one says: it was told the cabinet of St. James, or the Sublime Porte. Of course the expression involves reference to the living possessor of the government building, and the governing power, the king. Hence the language proceeds with pronouns (suffixes) in the singular.

2. Then said the Lord-the son of Remaliah.-Vers. 3 and 4. The Prophet receives command to go and meet the king, who had gone out, and thus whose return was to be looked for. But he must not go alone, but in company with his son, Shear-jashub. The son is no where else mentioned. The name signifies the chief contents of all prophecy, according to its two aspects. In the notion Shear, is indicated the

T:

the proclamation of salvation, comfort is the chief contents of His prophecies Israel has long known, and acknowledged. An old rabbinical saying, quoted by ABARB. reads 3 comp. Introduction. Threatening and consolation therefore go to meet Ahaz embodied in the persons of Isaiah and his son, yet so that consolation predominates, as also the words that Isaiah has to speak are for the most part consolatory. Had Israel only been susceptible of this consolation!

The locality where Isaiah was to meet the king is mentioned xxxvi. 2, and in the same words. There, Rabshakeh, the envoy of Sennacherib, according to that passage, held his interview with the men that Hezekiah sent out to him. It must, therefore, have been an open, roomy spot, suited for conferences. According to the researches of ROBINSON, against which the results of KRAFFT, WILLIAMS and HITZIG prove not to be tenable, (comp. ARNOLD in HERZOG'S R. Encycl. XVIII. p. 632 sq.), the upper-pool is identical with the Birket-el Mamilla, which in the west of Jerusalem lies in the basin that forms the beginning of the Vale of Hinnom, about 2100 feet from the Jaffa Gate. Moreover this pool is identical with "the old pool" mentioned xxii. 11. Hezekiah, when he saw that Sennacherib was coming (2 Chr. xxxii. 2 sqq.), stopped up the fountains outside of the city, and conducted the water of the fountain of Gihon and that of the upper-pool in a new conduit between the two walls (xxii. 11 coll. 2 Kings xx. 20; 2 Chr. xxxii. 30), in contrast with which it was that the upper-pool was called the older. The fuller's field, the place where the fullers washed, fulled and dried their stuffs, must have been in the neighborhood of a pool. Now JOSEPHUS (Bell. Jud. V. 4, 2) speaks of a μvijua yvadéws, "fuller's monument," that must have had its position north of the city. For this reason many (WILLIAMS, KRAFFT, HITZIG) look for the fuller's field in the neighborhood of the fuller's monument. But fuller's field and fuller's monument need not necessarily be near one another. For the latter does not necessarily concern the place of the fullers as such, but may have been erected on that spot to a fuller or by a fuller for any particular reason unknown to us. And anyway the existence of a pool in ancient times north of Jerusalem cannot be proved. Therefore the fuller's field lay probably in the neighborhood of the upper-pool west of the city.

Ahaz had probably a similar end in view at the upper pool to Hezehiah's, according to 2 Chr. xxxii. 2 sqq. It was to deprive the enemy of all fountains, brooks and pools, and yet preserve

them for the use of the city. The end was obstructed 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 affirmed of the subjects. ARNOLD, . 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 more. 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 so 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 premise" because Syria, etc., have taken evil counsel," etc., begins ver. 7, "thus saith the LORD." The evil counsel is set forth ver. 6. "It shall not come to pass," says literally, what is expressed = it shall not stand. For there underlies the latter expression the figure of a prostrate body that attains to standing, therefore gets to its feet and to life. Comp. xiv. 24; xxviii. 18; xlvi. 10; Prov. xix. 21. Had this promise been given at the first beginning of the Syro-Ephraimite war, it would have found no complete, corresponding fulfilment. For, as shown above, the counsel did not remain quite unaccomplished. Precisely the pan (ver. 6), "the forcing a breach," succeeded, according to 2 Chr. xxviii. 5. Hence we must, in accordance too with ver. 2, assume, that Isaiah addressed this prophecy to Ahaz after the beginning of the second act of that war.

תקום figuratively by לא

For the head of Syria, etc.-Ver. 8. These words are very difficult. Especially has the second clause of ver. 8, given great offense both by its contents and by its position. Many expositors therefore attempt, either to alter the text, or to reject the words to Dy as a gloss. These, in some instances very ingenious, attempts may be found recapitulated in GESENIUS. The Prophet had said, ver. 6, that Syria and Ephraim had the purpose of making the son of Tabeal king in Judah. That shall not come to pass, says ver. 7. This assertion is established by the double statement vers. 8 and 9. The latter consist of two members each, of which the first correspon is to the third, and the second to the fourth. The first and third member are con

in chief of Israel. What is then the head of
Syria, and Damascus compared with the head of
Judah and Jerusalem? Thus is explained why
Judah has nothing to fear from Rezin and Syria.
But of Ephraim ver. 9, the same thing is af-
firmed. Plainly the Prophet would intimate that
Pekah and Samaria, too, have only a sphere of
power limited to Ephraim, and that Samaria is
not to be brought into comparison with Jeru-
salem, nor the son of Remaliah with the son of
the same as the heathen nation Syria, and just as
David, that consequently, Ephraim is essentially
little to be dreaded by Judah. Thus the meaning
of ver.
8 a, and 9 a, as also their relation to
two other members ver. 8 b, 9 b? If we had only
one another is perfectly clear. But what of the
to do with 9 b, it would be an easy affair; for it
contains a very appropriate conclusion to 8 a,
9 a. It is, if I may so speak, double-edged.
Judah is not to appropriate unconditionally the
comfort of the promise given to it. Only if it
believes and obeys its Lord, need it have nothing
to fear from Syria and Ephraim. But if it does
not believe in the Lord, it shall itself fall to
pieces as the others. It cannot be said that
anything essential would be wanting if ver. 8 b
were not there. Neither can it be said, that in
that case an essential member would be abstracted
from the outward structure. For 8 a and 9 a
correspond; but 9 b is the one conclusion that
corresponds to both these members in common.
Only if 9 b, were wanting, would there be an es-
sential member missing. For then it would ap-
pear strange that 9 a, should have no conclusion
like 8 a, and an appropriate termination to the
whole address would be wanting. But even if
8b appear unnecessary in the context, that is

In order that Judah may partake of the blessing of this promise, it must itself fulfil a condition; the condition especially on which depends the blessed fulfilment of all promises: it must believe. If it believes not, which, alas, was the actual case, then it will not continue to exist itself.

that it is generally out of place. Many | xx. 3; xxi. 16; xxxviii. 5; comp. Ezk. iv. 5 med 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 dedress, and because the Prophets anyway nied; and I do not comprehend how DIESTEL e such exact figures. As regards the (in KNOBEL'S Komm. 4 Aufl. p. 66) can contend ver. 16, it was long ago pointed out against this reality, on which everything here dehat to de desertion of the land, that was the pends. Conseque pe of the Syro-Ephraimite war (2 Kings xv. 29), in fact to the deportation by Salmanassar, not sixty-five years, but a much less number of years elapsed. Hence, after the ex ample of PISCATOR, JACOB CAPPELLUS and others, USHER (Ann. V. T., at the year 3,327) proposed to take as the concluding point of the sixty-five years, the planting of Assyrian subjects in the deserted region of Ephraim (2 Kings xvii. 24) which, according to Ezr. iv. 2, took place under Esar-haddon. This fact, which indeed may be regarded as the sealing of the doom of Ephraim in regard to its existence as a state, must coincide with the time of Manasseh, and can with the carrying away this king, which according to the assumption of the Jewish chronology in Seder Olam. p. 67, took place in the twenty-second year of his reign. This would of course bring out the sixty-five years.

14 years of Ahaz.

"Hezekiah.
"Manasseh.

This reckoning, indeed, rests on no sure data, but it is still possible, and we can meanwhile quiet ourselves and say: if the Prophet meant the sixty-five years so, there exists no contradiction of ver. 16, and iyn, shall be forsaken, is not to be taken in an absolute sense. And the comfort that Ahaz was to find in the ruin of Ephraim that was to happen only after sixty-five years, was this, that he could say: a city devoted to remediless ruin, even though not in a very short time, is not to be feared. But as for the exact data of figures, THOLUCK (D. Proph. u. ihre Weiss., 1861, p. 116 sqq.), has proved the existence of such in the Old Testament (xvi. 14;

[J. A. ALEXANDER on ver. 4. The comparison of Rezin and Pekah to the tails or ends of firebrands, instead of firebrands themselves, is not a mere expression of contempt, nor a mere intimation of their approaching fate, as BARNES and HENDERSON explain it, but a distinct allusion to the evil which they had already done, and which should never be repeated. If the emphasis were only on the use of the word tails, the tail of anything else would have been qually appropriate. The smoking remnant of a firebrand implies a previous flame, if not a conflagration. This confirms the conclusion before drawn, that Judah had already been ravaged.

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 rhythmical design. The patronymic, like our English surname, can be used contemptuously only when it indicates ignoble origin, in which sense it may be applied to Pekah, who was a usurper

On ver. 5. The suppression of Pekah's proper name in this clause, and of Rezin's altogether in the first, has given rise to various far-fetched explanations, though it seems in fact, to show that the use of names in the whole passage is rather euphonic or rhythmical than significant.

On ver. 9. Another rendering equally natural to that of Luther (viz.: if ye believe not, then ye abide not) is; "if ye do not believe (it is) because ye are not to be established."]

10

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

the Virgin's Son Immanuel.

CHAP. VII. 10-25.

'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?