Christology of the Old Testament: And a Commentary on the Messianic Predictions Volume Ii Part 4

29, the most eastward and most northward countries, Peraea and Galilee are connected. [Pg 73] In that pa.s.sage 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 a.s.signing 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 a.s.shur'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 inst.i.tutions, 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 pa.s.sed 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 pa.s.sage 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 pa.s.sage 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: ????? ????? ????? ???? ?????. "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 princ.i.p.al 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 pa.s.sage, 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. x.x.x. 2, 3, "to the Lord thy G.o.d, and the Lord thy G.o.d turneth to thy captivity." And in the same chapter, vers. 6, 7: "The Lord thy G.o.d circ.u.mciseth thy heart, and _then_ the Lord thy G.o.d 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 G.o.d. Without the inward foundation, the bestowal of the outward blessing would be only a mockery, inasmuch as the holy G.o.d could not but immediately take away again what He had given. But the circ.u.mstance that it is the _outward_ salvation, the deliverance from the heathen servitude, the elevation of the people of G.o.d 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage 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.--?????, "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," h.e.l.l is to be understood. But darkness of h.e.l.l 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. lx.x.xviii. 4 ff., where Israel laments that the Lord had thrust it down into dark h.e.l.l. 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 pa.s.sage 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. ????sa? d?--thus the section begins--?t? ??????? pa?ed???, ??e????se? e?? t?? Ga???a?a?. 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 ??a???e?? 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 circ.u.mstance _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.--?a? ?ata??p?? t??

?a?a??t--it is said in ver. 13--????? ?at???se? e?? ?ape??a?? t??

pa?a?a?a.s.s?a?, ?? ?????? ?a????? ?a? ?ef?a?e?. 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 circ.u.mstance 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 sh.o.r.e 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 t??

pa?a?a?a.s.s?a? stands in reference to ?d?? ?a??ss??, in ver. 15. ??

??????, &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 t? ???a may, according to the a.n.a.logy of the Hebrew ??????, denote the borders in the sense of "territory," as in Matt. ii. 16.

From a comparison of ?? ?a????? ?a? ?efa?e? 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 ??a p?????? 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 ??a p?????? 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 ??e????se? e?? t?? Ga???a?a?. 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 ?d?? ?a??ss??

of the prophecy was found again, and that, therefore, thence the p??a?

t?? ???d???? 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 pa.s.sage. 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 ??--t?? ????? 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 ? ?a??, which has become an apposition, they form [Pg 80] the subject of the following sentence. At all events, ?d?? takes here the place of the adverb, although it may not be possible to adduce instances and proofs altogether a.n.a.logous 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 circ.u.mstance 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 a.s.sert 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 pa.s.sage 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 circ.u.mstance 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 a.s.sail 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 G.o.d 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 mult.i.tude of adopted sons from among the Gentiles were received into the Church of G.o.d, and thus the promise to Abraham: "I will make of thee a great nation" (??? as in the pa.s.sage before us, and not ??), 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. lx.x.xvii. 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 G.o.d 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. x.x.xvii. 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 flouris.h.i.+ng 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 antic.i.p.ates 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 pa.s.sage, 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 ???? "the people," Israel is designated; and that is frequently the case where the notion of the mult.i.tude, the ma.s.s 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 ant.i.thesis is quite the same as in chap. viii. 23 (ix. 1), where the former distress is contrasted with the light which is now to s.h.i.+ne 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. x.x.x. 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 G.o.d shall be brought to an end by Christ. Most of the ancient translators (LXX., Chald., Syr.) follow the marginal reading ??, "_to him_" hast thou increased the joy. According to many modern interpreters, ?? is supposed to be a different mode of writing for ??. 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 ?? stands here in a different sense from what it does in chap. viii. 23, and it would indeed be strange that ?? 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: ? f?e?s?e, ?d?? ???

e?a??e????a? ??? ?a??? e????? ?t?? ?sta? pa?t? t? ?a? ?t? ?t???? ???

s?e??? s?t??, ?? ?st? ???st?? ??????; 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 G.o.d_, 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, G.o.d 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 k.n.o.bel 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 a.s.shur, and the _whole_ world's power hostile to the Kingdom of G.o.d, 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: ?a?se?te, ??? ?e?????a t?? ??s??, yet after what we remarked on ver. 2, we are fully ent.i.tled to consider the former catastrophes also of the kingdoms of the world as preludes to the real fulfilment.--??? "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 gra.s.shoppers for mult.i.tude, and their camels were without number, as the sand by the seaside for mult.i.tude--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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sages, Ps. xlvi. 10, and Ezek. x.x.xix. 9, 10, do not permit us to doubt that the burning of the war-shoes and of the b.l.o.o.d.y garments come into consideration here as a consequence of the destruction of [Pg 85] the conquerors. Nor can we, according to these pa.s.sages, entertain, for a moment, the idea of _Meier_, that those b.l.o.o.d.y 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, G.o.d-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 ??? and ???. If any one should imagine that from the use of these Preterites he were ent.i.tled 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 G.o.d the Saviour appears as early as in Ps.

ii.; and it is to that Psalm that the "G.o.d-Hero" alludes, and connects itself. Alluding to the pa.s.sage before us, we read in John iii. 16: ??t?

??? ???p?se? ? ?e?? t?? ??s?? ("The zeal of the Lord of hosts will perform this,") vers. 6 [7], ?ste t?? ???? t?? ????e?? ?d??e?.--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 G.o.d. This, then, refers to the _Kingly office_ of Christ, and the state of glory. Parallel is the declaration of Christ in Matt. xxviii. 18, ?d??? ?? p?sa ????s?a. 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 ??te??e? in that pa.s.sage is contrasted with the words "from heaven" in Dan. ii., by which, in that pa.s.sage, its absolute superiority over all the kingdoms of the world, and its crus.h.i.+ng 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. lx.x.xi. 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 pa.s.sages, the noun put after ??? ??? 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 circ.u.mstance 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 ??? ????. That these two words must be _connected_ with one another (_Theodor._--?a?ast?? ???e???) appears from the a.n.a.logy of the other names, especially of ?? ????? with whom ??? ???? forms one pair; and then from the circ.u.mstance that ???? 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 ??? ??? in Gen. xvi. 12. ???? designates the attribute which is here concerned, while ??? 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 ??? 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 G.o.d that doest wonders;" Exod. xv. 11); as it here stands in parallelism with ?? G.o.d; 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 ??? ???? "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," ????, _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 pa.s.sage, chap. xxviii. 29, where it is said of the Most High G.o.d ????? ???, "He shows himself wonderful in His counsel."--The second name is ?? ????? "G.o.d-Hero." Besides the ability of giving good counsel, a good government requires also ????? 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 _G.o.d-Hero_, and a _Hero-G.o.d_, so that with His appearance there _disappears_ completely the contrast of the invisible Head of the people of G.o.d, and of His visible subst.i.tute,--a contrast which so often manifested itself, to the great grief of the covenant-people? The G.o.d-Hero forms the contrast to a human hero whose heroic might is, after all, always _limited_, ?? ???? can signify G.o.d-Hero only, a Hero who is infinitely exalted above all human heroes [Pg 88] by the circ.u.mstance that He is _G.o.d_. To the attempts at weakening the import of the name, chap. x. 21, where ?? ???? is said of the Most High, appears a very inconvenient obstacle,--a parallel pa.s.sage which does not occur by chance, but where ??? ???? stands with an intentional reference to chap. vii.: "The remnant shall return, the remnant of Jacob, unto the Hero-G.o.d," 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 ?? is always, even in pa.s.sages such as Gen. x.x.xi. 29, "G.o.d," and in all those pa.s.sages which are adduced to prove that it means "_princeps_," "_potens_," the forms are to be derived not from ??, but from ???, which properly means 'ram,'

then 'leader,' 'prince.'" By this explanation, especially the pa.s.sage Ezek. x.x.xii. 21, which had formerly been appealed to in support of the translation "strong hero," is set aside; for the ??? ??????? of that pa.s.sage are "rams of heroes." Rationalistic interpreters now differ in their attempts at getting rid of the troublesome fact. _Hitzig_ says, "Strong G.o.d"--he erroneously views ?????, 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 _k.n.o.bel_: "Strong G.o.d 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. lx.x.xii. 1-6, comp. John x. 34, 35, kings are, in general, called ?????, "G.o.ds, _Like_ G.o.d, to be compared to Him, a worthy representative of Him, and hence, likewise, called G.o.d." It is true that there is one ?? ????? only, and that, according to chap. x.

21, the Messiah cannot be ?? ????? beside the Most High G.o.d, excepting _by partaking in his nature_. Such a partic.i.p.ation in the nature, not His being merely filled with the power of [Pg 89] G.o.d, 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 G.o.d on earth; _e.g._, a court of justice is of G.o.d, and he who appears before it appears before G.o.d. But the name _Elohim_ is there given _in general only to the judicial court_, which represents G.o.d--to the _office_, not to the single individuals who are invested with it. In Ps. lx.x.xii. 1, the name _Elohim_ in the expression: "He judgeth among the G.o.ds" is given to the single, judging individual; comp. also ver. 6; but this pa.s.sage forms an isolated exception. To explain, from it, the pa.s.sage before us is inadmissible, even from chap. x. 21, where ?? ????? stands in its fullest sense. It must not be overlooked that that pa.s.sage in Ps. lx.x.xii. 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 G.o.d, while here _El_, a personal name, is used. _Hendewerk_, _Ewald_, and others, finally, explain "_G.o.d's hero_," _i.e._, "a divine hero, who, like an invincible G.o.d, fights and conquers." But in opposition to this view, it has been remarked by _Meier_ that then necessarily the words ought to run, ???? ??. It is farther obvious that by this explanation the ???? ?? here is, in a manner not to be admitted, disconnected and severed from those pa.s.sages where it occurs as an attribute of the Most High G.o.d; comp. besides chap. x. 21; Deut. x. 17; Jer. x.x.xii. 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._, ??? ???.

"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 circ.u.mstance 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_, -- 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 _G.o.d-hero_. The absolute eternity of the Messiah's dominion is, on the foundation of 2 Sam. vii., most emphatically declared in other pa.s.sages 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 G.o.d is called ??? ?? "the ever dwelling;" farther, Ps. lxviii. 6: "A _Father_ of the fatherless, and a judge of the widows is G.o.d in His holy habitation,"

where the providence of G.o.d 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 a.n.a.logy from Hebrew to adduce in its favour. The circ.u.mstance that, in the verse immediately following, the eternity of the government is mentioned, shows that ??

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 G.o.d,--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 s.h.i.+loh, 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 _G.o.d-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 G.o.d-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 ? with ?? occurs in the very same sense--clearly show that the ?

in ????? and ????? may very well be understood as a mere sign of the Dative. And the objection that the following ?????, &c. would, in that case, be unsuitable, is removed if it be explained: so that He establisheth, &c., or: by His establis.h.i.+ng, &c.; comp. _Ewald_, _Lehrbuch der Hebr. Sprache_ -- 280 d. The words designate the basis on which the increase of government and the peace rest. The Kingdom of G.o.d 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 G.o.d with His people; that at last the idea of the Kingdom of G.o.d will be realized. From the fundamental pa.s.sage, Ps. lxxii. 8-11, and parallel pa.s.sages, 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 ? 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.--???? "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 pa.s.sage, 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 ??? 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 pa.s.sage before us, as in the Song of Solomon viii. 6, and in chap. x.x.xvii. 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 G.o.d 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 pa.s.sage is referred by the Chaldean Paraphrast, by the Commentary on Genesis known by the name _Bres.h.i.+th Rabbah_ in the exposition of Genesis xli. 44 (see _Raim. Martini Pugio fidei_, Vol. iii. sec. 3, chap. xiv. -- 6), by Rabbi _Jose Galilaeus_ in the book _Ekha Rabbati_, a Commentary on Lamentations (see _Raim. Matt._ iii. 3 chap. 4, -- 13). _Ben Sira_ (fol.

40 ed., Amstel. 1679), mentions among the eight names of the Messiah, the following from the pa.s.sage 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 G.o.d; for doctrinal reasons, therefore, they gave up the received interpretation, and sought to adapt the pa.s.sage 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 circ.u.mstances, 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 pa.s.sages, 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 const.i.tute 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 a.s.syrian 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 circ.u.mstance that in it [Pg 95] the king of a.s.shur is represented as being about to march against Jerusalem, it is commonly inferred that it was uttered shortly before the destruction of the a.s.syrian 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 a.s.syrian army must already have reached the single stations mentioned there. The utmost that we are ent.i.tled to infer from this liveliness of description is, that the a.s.syrian 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 circ.u.mstance 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 a.s.shur'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 a.s.shur, who was just preparing to inflict the deadly blow upon the people of G.o.d. The fact that in chap.

xi. we have not an absolutely new beginning before us, sufficiently appears from the general a.n.a.logy, according to which, as a rule, the Messianic prophecy does not _begin_ the prophetical discourse; but still more clearly from the circ.u.mstance 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. a.s.shur 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 una.s.suming 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 a.s.shur's inroad into the country; to bring it home to the convictions of those who were despairing of the Kingdom of G.o.d, 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 G.o.d. It is for this purpose that the Prophet first describes the catastrophe of a.s.shur; that, then, in chap. xi., he points to the highest glorification which in future is destined for the Church of G.o.d by the appearance of Christ, in order that she may the more clearly perceive that every fear regarding her existence is folly.