Chapter IV: Front Matter (4)

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

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

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

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

[Footnote 1: _Meyer_, _Blätter für höhere Wahrheit_, iii. S. 101.]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

* * * * * * * * * *

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

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

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

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

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

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