Chapter VI: Front Matter (6)

The circumstance that the words in the first verse are completed in the number seven, divided into three and four, intimates that the Prophet here enters upon the territory of the revelation of a mystery of the Kingdom of God. Totally different--so the Prophet begins--from the fate of Asshur, just now proclaimed, shall that of the royal house of David be. Asshur shall be humbled at a time when he is most elevated. Lebanon falls through the mighty One: but the house of David shall be exalted at a time when he is most humbled. Who then would tremble and be afraid, although it go downward? _Luther_ says: "This is a short summary of the whole of theology and of the works of God, that Christ did not come till the trunk had died, and was altogether in a hopeless condition; that hence, when all hope is gone, we are to believe that it is the time of salvation, and that God is then nearest when He seems to be farthest off!" The same contrast appears in Ezek. xvii. 24. The Lord brings down the high tree of the world's power, and exalts the low tree of the Davidic house. The word [Hebrew: gze] does not mean "stem" in general, as several rationalistic interpreters, and _Meier_ last, have asserted, but rather stump, _truncus_, [Greek: kormos], as _Aquila_, _Symmachus_, _Theodotion_, translate. This is proved from the following reasons: (1) the derivation from [Hebrew: gze], in Arabic _secuit_, equivalent to [Hebrew: gde], "to cut off," chap. ix. 9; x. 33. The [Hebrew: gdeiM] in latter passage clearly refers to the [Hebrew: gze] here. The proud trees of Asshur shall be _cut down_; from the cut down trunk of David there shall grow up a _new_ tree overshadowing the earth, and offering glorious fruits to them that dwell on it.--(2) The _usus loquendi_. The signification, "stump," is, by [Pg 102] the context, required in the two passages in which the word [Hebrew: gze] still occurs. In Job xiv. 8, it is obvious. The whole passage there from vers. 7-9 illustrates the figurative representation in the verse under review. "For there is hope of a tree; if it be _cut down_ it will sprout again, and its tender branch does not cease. Though the root thereof wax old in the earth, and the _stump_ thereof die in the dust, through the scent of waters it buds, and brings forth boughs, like one newly planted." We have here the figure of our verse carried out. That which water is to the natural tree decaying, the Spirit and grace of God are to the dying tree, cut down to the very roots, of the Davidic family. In the second passage. Is. xl. 23, 24, it is only by a false interpretation that [Hebrew: gze] has been understood of the stem in general. "He bringeth princes to nothing, He destroyeth the kings of the earth. They are not planted; they are not sown; their _stump_ does not take root in the earth." The Prophet, having previously proved God's elevation over the creature, from the creation and preservation of the world, now proves it from the nothingness of all that which on earth has the greatest appearance of independent power. It costs Him no effort to destroy all earthly greatness which places itself in opposition to Him. He blows on them, and they have disappeared without leaving any trace. If God's will be not with it, princes will not attain to any firm footing and prosperity (they are not planted and sown); they are like a cut-down stem which has no more power to take root in the earth. A tree not planted dries up; corn not sown does not produce fruit; a cut down tree does not take root.--(3.) The connection. In the second member of the verse we read: "A branch from his roots shall bear fruit." Unless we mean to adopt the altogether unsuitable expedient of explaining it of a wild twig which shoots forth from the roots of a still standing tree, we cannot but think of a stem cut down to the very root. Against the opinion of _Hendewerk_ who remarks: "An indirect shoot from the root which comes forth from the root through the stem;" and against _Meier's_ opinion: "The root corresponds with the stem, and both together form the living tree," it is decisive, that in ver. 10, the Messiah is simply, and without any mention being made of the stem, designated as [Hebrew: wrw] "a shoot from the root." Farther, chap. liii. 2, where the Messiah is represented [Pg 103] as a shoot from the root out of a dry ground.--(4.) It is only when [Hebrew: gze] has the meaning, "stump," that it can be accounted for why the [Hebrew: gze] of Jesse, and not of David, is spoken of--(5.) The supposition that the Messiah shall be born at the time of the deepest humiliation of the Davidic family, after the entire loss of the royal dignity, pervades all the other prophetical writings. That Micah views the Davidic family as entirely sunk at the time of Christ's appearance, we showed in vol. I. p. 508-9. Compare farther the remarks on Amos ix. 11, and those on Matth. ii. 23 immediately following.--_Hitzig_ is obliged to confess that [Hebrew: gze] can designate the cut-off stem only; but maintains that Jesse, as an individual long ago dead, is designated as a cut-off tree. But against this opinion is the relation which, as we proved, exists between this verse and the last verses of the preceding chapter; the undeniable correspondence of [Hebrew: gze] with [Hebrew: gdeiM] in chap. x. 33. In that case the antithesis also, so evidently intended by the Prophet, would be altogether lost. It is not by any means a thing so uncommon, that a man who is already dead should have a glorious descendant. To this it may further be added that, according to this supposition, the circumstance is not all accounted for, that Jesse is mentioned, and not David, the royal ancestor, as is done everywhere else. _Finally_--In this very forced explanation, the parallel passages are altogether left out of view, in which likewise the doctrine is contained that, at the time of Christ's appearance, the Davidic family should have altogether sunk. The reason of all these futile attempts at explaining away the sense so evident and obvious, is none other than the fear of acknowledging in the prophecy an element which goes beyond the territory of patriotic fancy and human knowledge. But this dark fear should here so much the more be set aside, that, according to other passages also, the Prophet undeniably had the knowledge and conviction that Israel's course would be more and more downward before it attained, in Christ, to the full height of its destiny. We need remind only of the prophecies in chap. v. and vi.; and it is so much the more natural here to compare the latter of them, that, in it, in ver. 13, Israel, at the time of the appearing of the Messianic Kingdom, is represented as a felled tree,--a fact which has for its ground the sinking of the [Pg 104] Davidic race which is here announced. We farther direct attention to the circumstance that in our prophecy itself, Israel's being carried away into all the countries of the earth is foreseen as future,--a circumstance which is so much the more analogous, that there also, as here, the foreknowledge clothes itself in the form of the _supposition_ and not of express announcement. With regard to the latter point, it may still be remarked that Amos also, in chap. ix. 11, by speaking of the raising up of the tabernacle of David which is fallen, anticipates its future lowliness.--The question still arises:--Why is it that the Messiah is here designated as a rod of Jesse, while elsewhere, His origin is commonly traced back to David? _Umbreit_ is of opinion that the mention of Jesse may be explained from the Prophet's desire to trace the pedigree as far back as possible; in its apparent extinction, the family of the Messiah was to be pointed out as a _very old_ one. But if this had been his intention, he would have gone back beyond Jesse to the older ancestors whom the Book of Ruth mentions; and if he had been so anxious to honour the family of the Messiah, it would, at all events, have been far more suitable to mention David than Jesse, who was only one degree removed from him. The sound view has been long ago given by Calvin, who says: "The Prophet does not mention David; but rather Jesse. For so much was the dignity of that family diminished, that it seemed to be a rustic, ignoble family rather than a royal one." It was appropriate that that family, upon whom was a second time to be fulfilled the declaration in Ps. cxiii. 7, 8: "He raiseth up the poor out of the dust; He lifteth up the needy out of the dunghill, that He may set him with princes, with the princes of His people,"--in which, the second time, the transition should take place from the low condition to the royal dignity, should not be mentioned according to its royal, but according to its rustic character. This explanation of the fact is confirmed by the circumstance that it agrees exceedingly well with the right interpretation of [Hebrew: gze]: Jesse is mentioned and not David, because the Davidic dignity had become a [Hebrew: gze]. The mention of Jesse's name thus explained, agrees, then, with the birth of Christ at Bethlehem, announced by Isaiah's cotemporary, Micah. Christ was to be born at Bethlehem, because that residence was peculiar to the [Pg 105] family of David during its lowliness; comp. vol. I., p. 508-9.--The second hemistich of the verse may either be explained: "a twig from his roots shall bear fruit," or, as agrees better with the accents: "a twig shall from his roots bear fruit." The sense, at all events, is: A shoot proceeding from his roots (_i.e._, the cut-off stem of Jesse) shall grow up into a stately fruitful tree; or: As a tree cut down throws out from its roots a young shoot which, at first inconsiderable, grows up into a stately fruit-bearing tree, so from the family buried in contempt and lowliness, a _King_ shall arise who, at first humble and unheeded,[3] shall afterwards attain to great glory. Parallel is Ezek. xvii. 22-24. The Messiah is there compared to a tender twig which is planted by the Lord on a high hill, and sends forth branches and bears fruit, so that all the birds dwell in the shadow of its branches.--It has now become current to explain: "A branch breaks forth or sprouts;" but that explanation is against the _usus loquendi_. [Hebrew: prh] is never equivalent to [Hebrew: prH] "to break forth;" it has only the signification "to bear," "to bear fruit," "to be fruitful." _Gesenius_ who, in the later editions of his translation, here explains [Hebrew: prh] by, "to break forth," knows, in the _Thesaurus_, of no other signification. In the passage of Ezekiel referred to, which may be considered as a commentary on the verse before us, [Hebrew: ewh pri] corresponds to the [Hebrew: iprh] here. The change of the tense, too, suggests that [Hebrew: iprh] does not contain a mere repetition, but a progress. This progress is necessary for the sense of the whole verse. For it cannot be the point in question that, in general, a shoot comes forth; but the point is that this shoot shall attain to importance and glory. [Hebrew: iprh] comprehends and expresses in one word that which, in the subsequent verses of the section, is carried out in detail. First, there is the bestowal of the Spirit of the Lord whereby He is enabled to bear fruit; then, the fruit-bearing itself.

We here subjoin the discussion of the New Testament passage which refers to this verse.

[Footnote 1: Their testimony is collected by _Seb. Edzardi_ in the treatise: _Cap. xi. Esaiae Christo vindicatum adversus Grotium et sectatores ejus, imprimos Herm. v. d. Hardt._ Hamburg 1696.]

[Footnote 2: "The madness of the Jews is indeed to be lamented who refer this prophecy to Zerubbabel."]

[Footnote 3: Although _Umbreit_ denies it, yet this is implied in the designation of the Messiah as a shoot from the roots. Moreover, the lowliness of the Messiah himself at His appearance is a necessary consequence of the lowliness of His family; and it is a bad middle course to acknowledge the latter and deny the former. To this may, moreover, be added the parallel passage Is. liii. 2.]

[Pg 106]

ON MATTHEW II. 23.

[Greek: Kai elthôn katôkêsen eis polin legomenên Nazaret. hopôs plêrôthê to rhêthen dia tôn prophêtôn, hoti Nazôraios klêthêsetai.]

We here premise an investigation as regards the name of the town of Nazareth. Since that name occurs in the New Testament only, different views might arise as to its orthography and etymology. One view is this: The name was properly and originally [Hebrew: ncr]. Being the name of a town, it received, in Aramean, in addition, the feminine termination [Hebrew: a]. And, finally, on account of the original appellative signification of the word, a [Hebrew: t], the designation of the _status emphaticus_ of feminine nouns in [Hebrew: a], was sometimes added. We have an analogous case in the name _Dalmanutha_, the same place which, with the Talmudist, is called [Hebrew: clmvN]. Compare _Lightfoot decas chorog. Marc. praem., opp._ II., p. 411 sqq. So it is likewise probably that [Greek: gabbatha], [Hebrew: gbta] is formed from the masculine [Hebrew: gb], _dorsum_. Our view is that the original name was _Nezer_, that this form of the name was in use along with that which received a [Hebrew: t] added, and that this [Hebrew: t] served for the designation of the _status emphaticus_ only; or also, if we wish to take our stand upon the Hebrew form, was a mere hardening of the [Hebrew: h] Femin. (either of which suppositions is equally suitable for our purpose); and this our view we prove by the following arguments: 1. The testimonies of the Jews. _David de Pomis_ (in _De Dieu_, _critic. sacr._ on M. II. 23) says: [Hebrew: ncri mi wnvld beir ncr hglil rHvq mirvwliM drK wlwt imiM] "A Nazarene is he who is born in the town of _Nezer_, in Galilee, three days'journey from Jerusalem." In the Talmud, in _Breshith Rabba_, and in _Jalkut Shimeoni_ on Daniel, the contemptuous name of _Ben Nezer_, _i.e._, the Nazarene, is given to Christ; compare the passages in _Buxtorf_, _lex. c._ 1383; in _Lightfoot_, _disquis. chorog. Johan. praem. opp._ II., 578 sqq.; _Eisenmenger_, I., p. 3139. It is true, _Gieseler_ (on Matth. ii. 23, and in the _Studien u. Kritiken_, 1831, III. S. 591) has tried to give a different interpretation to this appellation. He is of opinion that this appellation has reference to Is. xi. 1; that it had come to the Jews from the Christians, who called [Pg 107] their Messiah [Hebrew: bN ncr], because He was He who had been promised by Isaiah. But this supposition is correct thus far only, that, no doubt, this appellation was chosen by the Jews with a reference to the circumstance that the Christians maintained that Jesus was the [Hebrew: ncr] announced by Isaiah, just as, for the very same reason, they also assign to Him the names [Hebrew: ncr napvP] "adulterous branch," and [Hebrew: ncr nteb] "abominable branch" (from Is. xiv. 19); comp. _Eisenmenger_ I. S. 137, 138. But _Gieseler_ is wrong in deriving, from this reference to Is. xi. 1, the origin of the appellation, be it properly or mainly only. Against that even the very appellation is decisive, for in that case it ought to have been _Nezer_ only, and not _Ben-Nezer_. _Gieseler_, it is true, asserts that he in whom a certain prophecy was fulfilled is called the "Son of the prophecy," and in confirmation of this _usus loquendi_ he refers to the circumstance that the pseudo-Messiah under Hadrian assumed, with a reference to the [Hebrew: kvkb] in Numb. xxiv. 17, the name [Hebrew: bN kvkb] or [Hebrew: bN kvkba], in so far as the star there promised had appeared in him. But this confirmation is only apparent; it can as little be proved from it, that Christ could be called _Ben-Nezer_ because He was He in whom the prophecy of the _Nezer_ was fulfilled, as it can be proved from the appellation _Ben Nezer_ that that pseudo-Messiah could be called _Bar Cochba_, only because it was believed that in him the prophecy of the star was fulfilled. _Reland_ has already proved (Geogr. II. p. 727) that _Barcochba_ probably had that name because he was a native of Cocab, a town or district in the country beyond Jordan. And the reason why he laid such special stress upon that descent was, that he sought a deeper meaning in this agreement of the name of his birth-place with the designation of the subject of the prophecy in Numb. xxiv. Moreover the supposition that, by the Jews, he in whom some prophecy was fulfilled, was called the son of that prophecy; that, _e.g._, the Messiah, the Servant of God, the Prince of Peace were called the Son of the Messiah, &c., is not only destitute of all foundation, but is, even in itself, most improbable. To this must still be added the consideration that this interpretation of _Ben-Nezer_ is opposed by the constant interpretation of the Jews. _Jarchi_, in a gloss on that passage of the Talmud referred to, explains _Ben Nezer_ by: "He who has come from the town of Nazareth." _Abarbanel_ [Pg 108] in his book _Majenehajeshua_, after having quoted from _Jalkut Shimeoni_ the passage in question, observes: "Remark well how they have explained the little horn in Daniel vii. 8, of the _Ben Nezer_ who is Jesus the _Nazarene_." From the Lexicon _Aruch_ which forms a weighty authority, Buxtorf quotes: "[Hebrew: ncr ncri hmqll] Nezer, (or Ben Nezer), is the accursed _Nazarene_." _Finally_--It could not well be supposed that the Jews, in a contest where they heap the most obnoxious blasphemies on Christ, should have given Him an honourable epithet which they had simply received from the Christians.

2. The result which we have obtained is confirmed by the statements of Christian writers. Even at the time of _Eusebius_ (Hist. Eccles. i. 7), and of _Jerome_, the place was called _Nazara_. The latter says: "_Nazareth_: there exists up to this day in Galilee a village opposite Legio, fifteen miles to the east of it, near Mount Tabor, called _Nazara_" (comp. _Reland_ i. S. 497). In _Epistol._ xvii. ad _Marcellum_ he expressly identifies the name with _Nezer_, by saying: "Let us go to Nazareth, and according to a right interpretation of that name, we shall see there the flower of Galilee."

3. To this may be added, that the _Gentilitia_ formed from Nazareth can be explained only when the [Hebrew: t] is not considered as belonging to the original form of the name. For, in that case, it must necessarily be found again in the _Gentilitia_, just as, _e.g._, from [Hebrew: entt] we could not by any means form [Hebrew: enti], but only [Hebrew: entti]. In the New Testament the two forms [Greek: Nazôraios] and [Greek: Nazarênos] only occur, never the form [Greek: Nazaretaios]. _Gieseler_ has felt the difficulty which these names present to the common hypothesis, but has endeavoured (l. c. p. 592) to remove them by the conjecture that this form, so very peculiar, had been coined by a consideration of [Hebrew: ncr] which the first Christians were accustomed to bring into connection with [Hebrew: ncrt]. But this conjecture would, at most, be admissible, only if, with the Jews too, the form [Hebrew: ncri] were not found throughout without a [Hebrew: t], and if the Arabic form also were not entirely analogous.[1]

[Pg 109]

The question now is:--In what sense was [Hebrew: ncr] assigned as a _nomen proprium_ to a place in Galilee? Certainly, we must at once reject the supposition of _Jerome_ that Nazareth was thus called, as being "the flower of Galilee," partly because [Hebrew: ncr] never occurs in this signification; partly because it is not conceivable that the place received a name which is due to it [Greek: kat'anti phrasin] only. It is much more probable that the place received the name on account of its smallness: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree. In this signification [Hebrew: ncr] occurs in Is. xi. 1, xiv. 19, and in the Talmudical _usus loquendi_ where [Hebrew: ncrim] signifies "_virgulta salicum decorticata, vimina ex quibus corbes fiunt._" There was so much the greater reason for giving the place this name that people had the symbol before their eyes in its environs; for the chalk-hills around Nazareth are over-grown with low bushes (comp. Burkhardt II. s. 583). That which these bushes were when compared with the stately trees which adorned other parts of the country, Nazareth was when compared with other cities.

This _nomen_ given to the place on account of its small beginnings, resembling, in this respect, the name of Zoar, _i.e._, a small town, was, at the same time, an _omen_ of its future condition. The weak twig never grew up into a tree. Nowhere in the Old Testament is Nazareth mentioned, probably because it was built only after the return from the captivity. Neither is it mentioned in _Josephus_. It was not, like most of the other towns in Palestine, ennobled by any recollection from the olden times. Yea, as it would appear, a special contempt was resting upon it, besides the general contempt in which all Galilee was held; just as every land has some place to which a disgrace attaches, which has often been called forth by causes altogether trifling. This appears not only from the question of Nathanael, in John i. 47: "Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth?" but also from the fact, that from the most ancient times the Jews thought to inflict upon Christ the greatest disgrace, by calling Him the Nazarene, whilst, in later times, the disgrace which rested on all Galilee [Pg 110] was removed by the circumstance that the most celebrated Jewish academy, that of Tiberias, belonged to it.

Let us now examine in how far Christ's abode at Nazareth served the purpose of fulfilling the Old Testament prophecy. It is, throughout, the doctrine of the prophets, that the Messiah, descending from the family of David, sunk into utter lowliness, would at first appear without any outward rank and dignity. The fundamental type for all other passages here concerned is contained in that passage of Is. xi. 1, now under consideration: "And there cometh forth a twig from the stump of Jesse, and a branch from his roots shall bear fruit," which is strikingly illustrated in the following words of _Quenstedt_, in his _Dissertatio de Germine Jehovae_, in the _Thesaurus theol. philol._ I. p. 1015: "The stem of Jesse which, from low beginnings, was, in David, raised to the glory of royal majesty, shall then not only be deprived of all royal dignity, and all outward splendour which it received in David, but shall again have been reduced to the private condition in which it was before David; so that it shall present the appearance of a stem deprived of all boughs and foliage, and having nothing left but the roots; nevertheless out of that stem thus reduced and cut off, and, as it appeared, almost dry, shall come forth a royal rod, and out of its roots shall grow the twig upon whom shall rest the Spirit of the Lord," &c. Quite in harmony with this, it is said in chap. liii. 2: "He grew up before the Lord as a tender twig, and as a root out of a dry ground." To [Hebrew: ncr], in chap. xi., corresponds [Hebrew: ivnq] in chap. liii.; to [Hebrew: HTr] the [Hebrew: wrw]; to the cut-off stem the dry land, with this difference, however, that by the latter designation, the low condition of the Servant of God, generally, is indicated; but His descent from the family of David sunk in lowliness, is not specially pointed at thereby, although it is necessarily implied in it. The same thought is further carried out in Ezek. xvii. 22-24. As the descendant of the family of David sank in lowliness, the Messiah appears in that passage as a small tender twig which is taken by the Lord from a high cedar, and, being planted upon a high mountain, growls up into a lofty tree, under which all the fowls dwell. In Jeremiah and Zechariah, the Messiah, with reference to the image of a cut-off tree used by Isaiah, is called the Sprout of David, or simply the Sprout; [Pg 111] compare remarks on Zech. iii. 8, vi. 12. All that is here required is certainly only to place beside one another, on the one hand, prophecy, and, on the other, history, in order clearly and evidently to point out the fulfilment of the former in the latter. It was not at Jerusalem, where there was the seat of His royal ancestor, where there were the thrones of His house (comp. Ps. cxxii.), that the Messiah took up his residence; but it was in the most despised place of the most despised province that, by divine Providence, He received His residence, after the predictions of the prophets had been fulfilled by His having been born at Bethlehem. The name of that place by which His lowliness was designated was the same as that by which Isaiah had designated the lowliness of the Messiah at His appearing.

We have hitherto considered prophecy and fulfilment independently of the quotation by St. Matthew. Let us now add a few remarks upon the latter.

1. It seems not to have been without reason that the wider formula of quotation: [Greek: to rhêthen dia tôn prophêtôn] is here chosen, although _Jerome_ infers too much from it when he remarks: "If he had wished to refer to a distinct quotation from Scripture, he would never have said: 'As was spoken by the prophets,'but simply, 'as was said by the prophet.'By using prophets in the plural, he shows that it is the sense, and not the words which he has taken from Scripture." No doubt St. Matthew has one passage chiefly in view--that in Is. xi. 1, which, besides the general announcement of the Messiah's lowliness, contains, in addition, a special designation of it which is found again in the _nomen_ and _omen_ of his native place. This appears especially from the circumstance that, if it were otherwise, the quotation: in [Greek: hoti Nazôraios klêthêstai], would be inexplicable, since it is very forced to suppose that "Nazarene" here designates generally one low and despised.[2] But he chose the general formula of [Pg 112] quotation (comp. _Gersdorf_, _Beiträge zur Sprachcharacteristik_ 1. S. 136), in order thereby to intimate that in Christ's residence at Nazareth those prophecies, too, were at the same time fulfilled, which, in the essential point--in the announcement of Christ's lowliness--agree with that of Isaiah. But it is just this additional reference which shows that, to Matthew, this was indeed the essential point, and that the agreement of the name of the town with the name which Christ has in Isaiah, appears to him only as a remarkable outward representation of the close connection of prophecy and fulfilment; just as, indeed, every thing in the life of Christ appears to be brought about by the special direction of Divine providence.

2. The phrase [Greek: hoti klêthêsetai] likewise is explained from the circumstance that Matthew does not restrict himself to the passage Is. xi. 1, but takes in, at the same time, all those other passages which have a similar meaning. From among them, it was from Zech. vi. 12: "Behold a man whose name is the Sprout," that the phrase [Greek: hoti klêthêsetai] flowed. There is hence no necessity for explaining this circumstance solely from the custom of the later Jews,[3] of claiming as the names of the Messiah all those expressions by which, in the Old Testament, His nature is designated, inasmuch as, in doing so, they followed the custom of the prophets themselves, who frequently bring forward as the name of the Messiah that which is merely one of His attributes. This hypothesis is inadmissible, because otherwise it would be difficult to point out any case in which the Evangelists had not admixed something of their own with a quotation which they announced as a literal one.

[Pg 113]

Ver. 2. "_And the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon Him, the Spirit of wisdom and understanding, the Spirit of counsel and might, the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord._"

The Spirit of the Lord is the general, the principle; and the subsequent terms are the single forms in which he manifests himself, and works. But, on the other hand, in a formal point of view, the Spirit of the Lord is just co-ordinate with the Spirit of wisdom, &c. Some, indeed, explain: the Spirit of God, who is the Spirit of, &c.; but that this is inadmissible appears with sufficient evidence from the circumstance that, by such a view, the sacred number, seven, is destroyed, which, with evident intention, is completed in the enumeration; compare the _seven_ spirits of God in Rev. i. 4. To have the Spirit is the necessary condition of every important and effective ministry in the Kingdom of God, from which salvation is to come forth; comp. Num. xxvii. 18. It is especially the blessed administration of the regal office which depends upon the possession of the Spirit; comp. 1 Sam. xvi. 13 ff. where it is said of David: "And Samuel took the horn of oil and anointed him: and the Spirit of the Lord came upon him from that day forward;" comp. 1 Sam. x. 6, 10. The circumstance that the Spirit of the Lord resteth upon the Messiah does not form a contradiction to His _divine nature_, which is intimated by his being born of the Virgin, chap. vii. 14, by the name [Hebrew: al gbvr] in chap. ix. 5, and elsewhere (comp. Vol. I., p. 490, 491), and is witnessed even in this prophecy itself; but, on the contrary, the pouring out of the Spirit fully and not by measure (John iii. 39) which is here spoken of, _implies_ the divine nature. In order to receive the Spirit of God in such a measure that He could baptize with the Holy Spirit (John i. 33), that out of His fulness all received (John i. 16), that, in consequence of His fulness of the Spirit overflowing from Him to the Church, the earth could be filled with the knowledge of the Lord as the waters covering the sea (ver. 9), He could not but be highly exalted above human nature. It was just because they remained limited to the insufficient substratum of human nature, that even the best kings, that even David, the man after God's own heart, received the Spirit in a scanty measure only, and were constantly in danger of [Pg 114] losing again that which they possessed, as is shown by David's pitiful prayer: "Take not thy Holy Spirit from me" (Ps. li. 13). It was just for this reason, therefore, that the theocracy possessed in the kings a very sufficient organ of its realization, and that the stream of the divine blessings could not flow freely. In Matt. iii. 16: [Greek: kai eide to pneuma tou theou katabainon hôsei peristeran kai erchomenon ep'auton], it is not the passage before us only which lies at the foundation, but also, and indeed pre-eminently, the parallel passage, chap. xlii. 1: "Behold my Servant whom I uphold, mine Elect in whom my soul delighteth; I put my Spirit upon Him," as is apparent from the circumstance that it is to this passage that the voice from heaven refers in Matt. iii. 17: [Greek: houtos estin ho huios mou ho agapêtos en hô eudokêsa]. But a reference to the passage before us we meet most decidedly in John i. 32, 33: [Greek: Tetheamai to pneuma katabainon hôsei peristeran ex ouranou, kai emeinen ep'auton. Kagô ouk êdein auton. all'ho pempsas me baptizein en hudati, ekeinos moi eipen. eph'hon an idês to pneuma katabainon kai menon ep'auton, houtos estin ho baptizôn en pneumati hagiô]. The word [Hebrew: nvH], which in Numb. xi. 25 also is used of the Spirit, combines in itself both the [Greek: katabainein] and the [Greek: menein]; it is _requiescere_. As the fulfilment of this prophecy, however, we must not look to that event only where it received a symbolical representation, but also to Acts ii. 3: [Greek: kai ôphthêsan autois diamerizomenai glôssai hôsei puros, ekathise te eph'hena hekaston autôn]; comp. 1 Pet. iv. 14: [Greek: hote to tês doxês kai to tou theou pneuma eph'humas anapauetai] (this most exactly answers [Hebrew: nvH]). For it is not merely for himself that Christ here receives the Spirit; but He receives Him as the transforming principle for the human race; He is bestowed upon. Him as the Head of the Church.--In the enumeration of the forms in which the Spirit manifests himself, it was not the intention of the Prophet to set forth _all_ the perfections of the Messiah; he rather, by way of example, mentions some only after having comprehended all of them in the general: The Spirit of the Lord. Thus, _e.g._, _justice_, which is mentioned immediately afterwards in ver. 5, is omitted here.--The first pair are wisdom and understanding. _Wisdom_ is that excellency of knowledge which rests on moral perfection. It is opposed to [Hebrew: nblh], foolishness in a moral sense, which may easily be combined with the greatest ingenuity and cleverness. The excellence of knowledge resting [Pg 115] on a moral basis manifests itself in the first instance, and preeminently, in the [Hebrew: binh], understanding, the sharp and penetrating eye which beholds things as they are, and penetrates from the surface to their hidden essence, undisturbed by the dense fogs of false notions and illusions which, in the case of the fool, are formed by his lusts and passions. Neither of these attributes can, in its absolute perfection, be the possession of any mortal, because even in those who, morally, are most advanced, there ever remains sin, and, therefore, a darkening of the knowledge.--The second pair, counsel and might, are, just as in the passage before us, ascribed to the Messiah in chap. ix. 5 (6), by His receiving the names "Wonder-Counsellor," "God-Hero." From chap. xxxvi. 5 it is seen that, for the difficult circumstances of the struggle, _counsel_ is of no less consequence than _might_. The last pair, knowledge and fear of the Lord, form the fundamental effect of the Spirit of the Lord; all the great qualities of the soul, all the gifts which are beneficial for the Kingdom of God, rest on the intimacy of the connection with God which manifests itself in living knowledge and fear of the Lord; the latter not being the servile but the filial fear, not opposed to love, but its constant companion. The Prophet has put this pair at the close, only because he intends to connect with it that which immediately follows. We have already remarked that the Spirit of the Lord, &c., is bestowed upon the Messiah not for himself alone, but as the renovating principle of the Church.--Old Testament analogies and types are not wanting in this matter. Moses puts of his spirit upon the seventy Elders, and the spirit of Elijah rests on Elisha, and likewise on the whole crowd of disciples who gathered around him (2 Kings ii. 9).

Ver. 3. "_And He hath His delight in the fear of the Lord, and not after the sight of His eyes doth He judge, nor after the hearing of His ears doth He decide._"

We now learn how the glorious gifts of the Anointed, described in ver. 2, are displayed in His government. All attempts to bring the second and third clauses under the same point of view as the first, and to derive them from the same source are in vain. That He has delight in the fear of the Lord, is the consequence of the Spirit of knowledge and of the fear of the Lord resting upon Him,--He loves what is congenial [Pg 116] to His own nature. That He does not judge after the sight of His eyes, &c., is the consequence of His having the Spirit of wisdom and understanding. It is thereby that He is freed from the narrow superficiality which is natural to man, and raised to the sphere of that divine clearness of vision which penetrates to the depths, [Hebrew: hriH] with the accusative is "to smell something;" with [Hebrew: b], to "smell at something," "to smell with delight." The fear of the Lord appears as something of a sweet scent to the Messiah. The other explanations of the first clause abandon the sure, ascertained _usus loquendi_ (comp. Exod. xxx. 38; Levit. xxvi. 31; Am. v. 21), and, therefore, do not deserve any mention. On the second and third clauses 1 Sam. xvi. 7, is to be compared: "And the Lord said unto Samuel: Look not on his countenance, or on the height of his stature, because I have refused him; for not that which man looks at (do I look at); for man looketh on the eyes (and, in general, on the outward appearance), and I look on the heart." It is especially John who repeatedly mentions that Christ really possessed the gift here assigned to Him, of judging, not from the first appearance, and according to untrustworthy information, but of penetrating into the innermost ground of the facts and persons, comp. ii. 24, 25: [Greek: autos de Iêsous, ouk episteuen heautôn autois, dia to auton ginôskein pantas, kai hoti ou chreian eichen hina tis marturêsê peri tou anthrôpou. autos gar eginôske ti ên hen anthrôpô.] Farther--chap. xxi. 17 where Peter says to Christ: [Greek: Kurie su panta oidas. su ginôskeis hoti philô se.] Farther, i. 48, 49; iv. 18, 19; vi. 64. In Revel. ii. 23, Christ says: "And all Churches shall know that I am He which searcheth the reins and hearts."

Ver. 4. "_And He judgeth in righteousness the lowly, and doeth justice in equity to the meek of the earth, and smiteth the earth with the rod of His mouth, and with the breath of His lips He slayeth the wicked._"

The King shall be adorned with perfect justice, and, in the exercise of it, be supported by His omnipotence,--differently from what was the case with David, who, for want of power, was obliged to allow heinous crimes to pass unpunished (2 Sam. iii. 39). Just as by the excellency of His _will_ He is infinitely exalted above all former rulers, so is He also by the excellency of _might_. Where, as in His case, the highest [Pg 117] might stands in the service of the best will, the noblest results must come forth. The first two clauses refer to Ps. lxxii., which was written by Solomon, and where, in ver. 2, it is said of Christ: "He shall judge thy people in righteousness, and thy lowly ones in judgment," and in ver. 4: "He shall judge the lowly of thy people, He shall save the children of the needy, and shall break in pieces the oppressors;" compare farther Prov. xxix. 14: "A king that in truth judgeth the lowly, his throne shall be established for ever." The earth forms the contrast to the limited territory which was hitherto assigned to the theocratic kings.--In the second part of the verse [Hebrew: arC] does not by any means stand in contrast to [Hebrew: dliM] and [Hebrew: enviM], and, in parallelism to [Hebrew: rwe], designate the wicked ones; but [Hebrew: arC] "earth" stands in antithesis to the narrow territory in which earthly kings are permitted to dispense law and justice. It is a matter of course, and is, moreover, expressly stated in the second clause, that the earth comes into consideration with a view to those only who are objects of His judging activity. From that which follows, where changes are spoken of which shall take place on the whole earth, it follows that [Hebrew: arC] must be taken in the signification of "earth." and not of "land." Hand in hand with the infinite extent of the King's exercise of justice goes also the manner of it. "The whole earth," and the "breath of the mouth," correspond with one another.--In the words "with the rod of His mouth," a tacit antithesis lies at the foundation. As kings strike with the sceptre, so He smiteth with His mouth.--[Hebrew: wbT], the ensign of royal dignity, is the symbol of the whole earthly power, which, being external and exercised by external means, must needs be limited, and insufficient for the perfect exercise of justice. The exercise of justice on the part of earthly kings reaches so far only as their hand armed with the smiting sceptre. But that great King is, in the exercise of justice, supported by His _Omnipotence_. He punishes and destroys by His mere word. Several interpreters understand this as a mere designation of His severity in punishing,--"the rod of His mouth" to be equivalent to "severity of punishment;"--but that such is not the meaning appears from the following clause, where likewise special weight is attached to the circumstance that the Messiah inflicts punishment by His mere word; "the breath of His lips" is equivalent [Pg 118] to "mere words," "mere command;" compare "breath of His mouth," in Ps. xxxiii. 6. _Hitzig's_ explanation, "the angry breath of His lips," does not interpret, but interpolate. In the future Son of David every word is, at the same time, a deed; He speaks and it is done. The same which is here said of the Messiah is, in other passages, attributed to _God_: compare Job xv. 30, where it is said of the wicked: "By the breath of His mouth he shall go away;" Hos. vi. 5: "I have slain them by the word of my mouth." In general, according to the precedent in Gen. i., doing by the mere word is, in Scripture, the characteristic designation of Divine Omnipotence. Parallel is chap. xlix. 2, where Christ says: "And He hath made my mouth like a sharp sword," equivalent to: He has endowed me with His Omnipotence, so that my word also exercises destructive effect, just as His. In Rev. i. 16, it is said of Christ: "And out of His mouth went a sharp two-edged sword,"--to designate the destructive power of His word borne by Omnipotence, the omnipotent punitive power of Christ against enemies, both internal and external. An instance of the manner in which Christ smites by the word of His mouth is offered by Acts v. 3 (where, according to the analogy of the word spoken in the name of God by Elijah, 2 Kings i. 10, 12, and by Elisha, 2 Kings ii. 24, v. 27, the Apostles are to be considered only as His instruments): [Greek: akouôn de Ananias tous logous toutous pesôn exepsuxe], comp. ver. 10; xiii. 11. The Chaldee translates: "And by the word of His lips wicked Armillus shall die." He refers [Hebrew: rwe] not to the ideal person of the wicked, but to an individual, _Armillus_, ([Greek: erêmolaos], corresponding to the name of Balaam, compounded of [Hebrew: ble] "devouring," "destruction," and [Hebrew: eM] "people") the formidable, last enemy of the Jews who shall carry on severe wars with them, slay the Messiah ben Joseph, but at length be slain by the Messiah ben David with a mere word, compare _Buxtorf_, _Lex. Chald._ cap. 221-224: _Eisenmenger_, _entdecktes Judenthum_ ii. S. 705 ff. In 2 Thess. ii. 8, in the description of Antichrist's destruction by Christ: [Greek: hon ho Kurios Iêsous analôsei tô pneumati tou stomatos autou], there is an intentional and significant allusion to the passage before us, Antichrist there being, like [Hebrew: rwe] here, an ideal person; for the arguments in proof, see my Comment, on Revelation, vol. ii.

Ver. 5. "_And righteousness is the girdle of His loins, and faithfulness the girdle of His reins._"

[Pg 119]

Righteousness and faithfulness are in a similar manner connected in 1 Sam. xxvi. 13 (? Prov. xii. 17). Faithfulness is trustworthiness. The point of comparison with the girdle is the closeness of the union; comp. Ps. cix. 19; Jer. xiii. 1, 2, 11.

In ver. 6, the Prophet passes from the _person_ of the glorious King to a description of His Kingdom. With regard to ver. 6-8, the question arises, whether the description is to be understood figuratively or literally; whether the Prophet intends to describe the cessation of all hostility among men, or whether he expected that, in the Messianic time, even among the irrational creation, all hostility and destruction, every thing pernicious was to cease. Most of the ancient interpreters are attached to the former view. Thus _Theodoret_ says: "In a figurative manner, under the image of domesticated and wild animals, the Prophet taught the change of the habits of men." He refers every thing to the union, within the Christian Church, of those who, in their natural condition, lived far separated from one another, and in hostility the one to the other. _Jerome_ considers the opposite view as even a species of heresy. He says: "The Jews and the Judaizers among ourselves maintain that all this shall be fulfilled according to the letter; that in the light of Christ who, they believe, shall come at the end of the days, all beasts shall be reduced to tameness, so that the wolf, giving up its former ferocity, shall dwell with the lamb, &c." Upon the whole, he states the sense in the same manner as _Theodoret_, from whom he sometimes differs in the allegorical explanation of the details only. In a similar manner _Luther_ also explains it, who, _e.g._, on ver. 6, "the wolf shall dwell with the lambs, etc." remarks: "But these are allegories by which the Prophet intimates that the tyrants, the self-righteous and powerful ones in the world, shall be converted, and be received into the Church." _Calvin_ says: "By these images, the Prophet indicates that, among the people of Christ there will be no disposition for injuring one another, nor any ferocity or inhumanity." The circumstance that the use of animal symbolism is widely spread throughout Scripture is in favour of this interpretation. One may, _e.g._ compare Ps. xxii., where the enemies of the righteous are represented under the image of dogs, lions, bulls, and unicorns; [Pg 120] Jer. v. 6, where, by lion, wolf, and leopard, the kingdoms of the world which are destructive to the people of God are designated; the four beasts in Dan. vii.; but especially Is. xxxv. 9: "There (on the way of salvation which the Lord shall, in the future, open up for His people) shall not be a lion, nor shall any ravenous beast go up thereon,"--where the ravenous beasts are the representatives of the world's power, hostile to the Kingdom of God. Nevertheless, the literal interpretation, defended by several Jewish expositors, maintains an undeniable preference. In favour of it are the following arguments: 1. The circumstance that it is impossible to carry through, in the details, the figurative interpretation; and it is by this that our passage is distinguished from all the other passages in which the wild, cruel, and destructive tendencies in the human sphere appear under the images of their representatives in the animal world. The supposition that "we have here before us only a poetical enlargement of the thought that all evil shall cease" (_Hendewerk_, _Knobel_), removes the boundaries which separate prophecy from poetry. 2. The parallelism with the condition of the creation before the fall, as it is described to us by Holy Scripture. It is certainly not without reason that, in the account of the creation, so much emphasis is laid on the circumstance that all which was created was _good_. This implies a condition of the irrational creation different from what it is now; for in its present state it gives us a faithful copy of the first fall, inasmuch as every heinous vice has its symbols and representatives in the animal kingdom. According to Gen. ii. 19, 20, the animals recognize in Adam their lord and king, peaceably gather around him, and receive their names from him. According to Gen. i. 30, grass only was assigned to animals for their food; the whole animal world bore the image of the innocence and peace of the first man, and was not yet pervaded by the law of mutual destruction. Where there was not a Cain, neither was there a lion. The serpent has not yet its disgusting and horrible figure, and fearlessly men have intercourse with it; comp. Vol. i. p. 15, 16. But the influence of sin pervaded and penetrated the whole nature, and covered it with a curse (comp. Gen. iii. 17-19); so that it not only bears evidence to the existence of God, but also to the existence of sin. [Pg 121] Now, as it is by sin that outward discord, and contention, and destruction _arose_ in the irrational creature, so we may also expect that, when the cause has been removed, the effect too will disappear; that, with the cessation of the discord and enmity among men, which, according to ver. 9, the Prophet expected of the Messianic time, discord and enmity in the animal world will cease also. In the individual features, the Prophet seems even distinctly to refer to the history of the creation; compare ver. 7: "The lion shall eat straw like the ox," with Gen. i. 30; ver. 8: "the sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp," with Gen. iii. 15. 3. The comparison of other passages of Scripture, according to which likewise the reflection of the evil in the irrational creation shall cease, after the evil has been removed from the rational creation; compare chap. lxv. 25, lxvi, 22; Matt. xix. 28, where the Lord speaks of the [Greek: palingenesia], the return of the whole earthly creation to its original condition; but especially Rom. viii. 19 ff.--that classical passage of the New Testament which is really parallel to the passage before us. 4. A subordinate argument is still offered by the parallel descriptions of heathen writers. From the passages collected by _Clericus_, _Lowth_, and _Gesenius_, we quote a few only. In the description of the golden age, _Virgil_ says, _Ecl._ iv. 21 sqq.; v. 60: _Occidet et serpens et fallax herba veneni occidet._--_Nec magnos metuent armenta leones._--_Nec lupus insidias pecori._ _Horat. Epod._ xiv. 53: _Nec vespertinus circumgemit ursus ovile nec intumescit alta viperis humus._--_Theocrit. Idyll._ xxiv. 84. Utterances such as these show how unnatural the present condition of the earth is. They are, however, not so much to be regarded as the remains of some outward tradition (against such a supposition it is decisive that they occur chiefly with _poets_), but rather as utterances of an indestructible longing in man, which, being so deeply rooted in human nature, contains in itself the guarantee of being gratified at some future period. But, with all this, we must do justice to the objection drawn from the evident parallelism of passages such as chap. xxxv. 9, and to another objection advanced by _Vitringa_, that it is strange that there is so much spoken of animals, and so little of men. This we shall do by remarking that, in the description of the glorious effects which the government of Christ shall produce on the earth, the Prophet at once proceeds to the utmost limit of [Pg 122] them; and that the removal of hostility and destruction from the irrational creation implies that all that will be removed which, in the rational creation, proceeds from the principle of hatred, inasmuch as it is certain that the former is only a reflection of the latter, and that the Prophet speaks with a distinct reference to this supposition which he afterwards, in ver. 9, distinctly expresses. Hence, to a certain degree, a double sense takes place; and, in the main, _J. H. Michaelis_ has hit the right by comparing, first, Gen. i. and Rom. viii., and then continuing: "Parabolically, however, by the wild beasts, wild and cruel nations are understood, which are to be converted to Christ; or violent men who, by the Spirit of Christ, are rendered meek and gentle, just as Paul, from a wolf, was changed into a lamb." We are the less permitted to lose sight of the reference to the lions and bears on the spiritual territory, that ver. 6 is, in the first instance, connected with vers. 4 and 5, in which the all-powerful sway of Christ's justice on earth is described, of which the consequences must, in the first instance, appear in the _human territory_; and, farther, that the point from which the prophecy started, is the raging of the wolf and bear of the world's power against the poor defenceless flock of the Lord.

Ver. 6. "_And the wolf dwelleth with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid, the calf, and, the lion and the fatling together, and a little child leads them._"