Isaiah · Chapter 7

V. 1. Ahaz-A most wicked king: yet no prophecies are more comfortable than those which were delivered in his time; God so ordering it for the encouragement of the faithful that lived under his impious reign.

Verse 1. And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz — Of whose idolatries and abominable wickedness the reader will find a particular account, 2 Chronicles 28:1-4. Rezin and Pekah went up toward Jerusalem — “The confederacy of these two kings against the kingdom of Judah was formed in the time of Jotham; and perhaps the effects of it were felt in the latter part of his reign. See 2 Kings 15:37. However, in the very beginning of the reign of Ahaz, they jointly invaded Judah with a powerful army, and threatened to destroy, or to dethrone the house of David. The king and royal family being in the utmost consternation on receiving advices of their designs, Isaiah is sent to them to support and comfort them in their present distress, by assuring them that God would make good his promises to David and his house. This makes the subject of this and the following chapter, and the beginning of the ninth.” But could not prevail against it — That is, against Jerusalem. But yet they carried away a multitude of captives out of Judea, slew a vast number of the people, and Rezin restored Elah to his own dominions. See notes on 2 Kings 16:5, and on 2 Chronicles 28:5, 6.

Verse 1. In the days of Ahaz, the second or the third year of his reign. Chapters 5. and 6. are therefore out of place.

1. And it came to pass — Isaiah’s recorded prophecies under the reigns of Uzziah and Jotham have closed, and those under Ahaz here begin. Jotham and his father were good kings, and their reigns were the most prosperous in the annals of Judah. One element of idolatry, however, was not discouraged — the high places were not destroyed. (See note on Isaiah 2:6; and for a full discussion on “High Places,” see Smith’s Dict. of the Bible.) This, of course, emboldened the people in some practices hostile to the religion of Jehovah, and the long term of national prosperity led to indulgence among the younger generation in many fascinating forms of idolatry. In consequence, Judah showed to the searching thought of the envious rulers of adjacent kingdoms such signs of national degeneracy and weakness as encouraged them to form schemes of aggression. But they delayed their assault till Jotham’s death and the accession of his son — B.C. 742 — when the first great attack was made, and the army of Ahaz was destroyed, and two hundred thousand captives, (see 2 Chronicles 28:5-15,) which, at the instance of a prophet at Samaria, Oded by name, were returned to Judah. It seems to be at a point of time between this great first success of the enemy and his final retreat that the narrative here begins, and the word “and” in the text connects the two events. In the days of Ahaz — The true age of Ahaz when he began to reign was probably twenty-five; (see Septuagint at 2 Chronicles 28:1;) otherwise he became the father of Hezekiah at ten years of age. Ahaz seems to have been trained (probably through maternal influence and direction) in an atmosphere of idolatry. He erected statues of Baal, and joined in the rites of Moloch, 2 Chronicles 28:1-5. His kingdom began early to suffer retribution. Patriotism wanes when God is dishonoured. So at this time. In the course of his reign trouble arose all around the horizon. Ammonites broke from their vassalage. Edomites, becoming free, assaulted the southern, and Philistines the western, borders. This state of things came from complications in the last of Jotham’s reign. Egypt, in the southwest, and Assyria, in the northeast, were the great powers that alternately kept the intervening small kingdoms in a state of semi-subjection. They used these lesser kingdoms at convenience in their hostile operations on each other. At this time Assyria seems to be in the ascendant. Damascus chafes at being tributary to Assyria, and Rezin, her king, readily consents to confederate with Pekah, the usurper, king over Israel, (2 Kings 15:25,) who wants to humble the hitherto prosperous Judah. Egypt favours any confederation that will protect her frontier against her formidable rival, Assyria.

This appears to be the situation in the last of Jotham’s reign. The history in 2 Kings 15:37-16:9, is fragmentary, but it hints, and the Assyrian inscriptions confirm, that the leaguers Pekah and Rezin made an unsuccessful raid against Judah under Jotham, who unfortunately died while yet in his vigour, and left the wicked and weak Ahaz an easier prey to their designs. A second inroad was made on Judah with the results above mentioned, namely, an immense slaughter of troops and a great capture of women and children from among the villages. But Jerusalem was yet too well fortified to be taken. And this explains the last words of this verse, could not prevail against it. The geographical positions are thus: Syria, of which Damascus is the capital and Rezin the king, is northeast, and between Israel and Assyria; and Ephraim, or Israel, is north of Judah, and between that kingdom and that of Syria.

V. 2. David-Ahaz, and his relations. He calls them the house of David, to intimate that the following comfortable message was sent to Ahaz, not for his own sake, but for the sake of his worthy progenitor David. Ephraim-The kingdom of the ten tribes, commonly called Ephraim, because that was the most numerous of all. Moved-With fear, arising from a consciousness of their own guilt, and their enemies strength.

Verse 2. And it was told the house of David — Ahaz and his royal relations and courtiers. He calls them the house of David, to intimate that the following comfortable message was sent to Ahaz, not for his own sake, but only for the sake of his worthy progenitor David, to whom God had promised an everlasting kingdom. Syria is confederate with Ephraim — With the kingdom of the ten tribes, commonly called Ephraim, because that tribe was by far the most numerous and potent of them. And his heart was moved — Namely, the heart of Ahaz; and the heart of his people — With excessive fear, arising partly from a consciousness of their own guilt, whereby they had put themselves out of God’s protection; and partly from the consideration of the great strength and power of their enemies.

2. Told the house of David — This signal phrase refers not to the court of Ahaz, but to the blood royal, the lineage; as in modern phrase, “the house of Bourbon,” “the house of Brunswick.” So always, as 1 Kings 12:19: “Israel rebelled against the house of David unto this day;” as also verses 16 and 26, same chapter. And in Nathan’s memorable message to David, (2 Samuel 7,) the king was told that as he had purposed to build Jehovah a “house,” so Jehovah would build him “a house,” that is, a royal lineage. “Thine house and thy kingdom shall be established for ever before thee.” Verse 16. And David replies, (verses 18, 25-27, and 29,) “Bless the house of thy servant that it may continue before thee for ever.” And so Luke 1:27: “To a virgin… of the house of David.” Illustrious was the pedigree of that house, as given by Luke, beginning with Adam and the fall, and reaching to the Messiah. And never yet, in Ahaz’s time, had the line of David on the throne been broken. The royal line in the northern kingdom had been changed by a succession of usurpers, of whom this Pekah was then the last one. Doubtless the royal family of David realized their high descent, and were most deeply alarmed at the thought that its sacred continuity should be broken, and a usurper, the son of Tabeal, should break the promised line. His heart — David’s “heart,” ideally identified with David’s “house;” and so his people, no other than David’s.

V. 3. Thy son-Whose very name carried in it a sign and pledge of the promised deliverance, signifying, The remnant shall return. Fuller’s field-Whither he probably went to take care about the waters which thence were brought into the city, to secure them to himself, or keep them from the enemy, as Hezekiah afterward did, 2 Chronicles 32:3,4.

Verse 3. Now] an na, is omitted by two MSS., the Septuagint, Syriac, Arabic, and Vulgate.

Verse 3. Then said the Lord unto Isaiah — This fifth discourse, delivered as immediately from the Lord, which extends from hence to the end of chap. 12., is of a very mixed and various argument. It may be divided into five parts: the first contained in this chapter; the second from Isaiah 8:1, to Isaiah 9:7; the third from Isaiah 9:7, to Isaiah 10:5; the fourth from Isaiah 10:5, to the end of that chapter; and the fifth is contained in the eleventh and twelfth chapters. The first part of this prophecy, which foretells the invasion of Judea by the Ephraimites, the Syrians, and Assyrians, contains a kind of introduction to the subsequent prophecies in this discourse. Its design is two-fold; first, to comfort the pious in Jerusalem, amidst this great calamity which threatened their nation, and to testify the singular providence of God toward the house of David, which he had hitherto preserved, and would continue to preserve till the completion of his great design: and, secondly, to upbraid the folly and ingratitude of Ahaz. See Vitringa. Go forth now to meet Ahaz — Here we have an eminent instance of God’s preventing mercy toward one who neither inquired of him, nor sought his help. Thus God is often found of those who seek him not: much more will he be found of those who seek him diligently! And Shear-jashub thy son — Whose very name, signifying, A remnant shall return, carried in it a sign and pledge of the promised deliverance. At the end of the conduit — Whither he probably went to take care about the waters which thence were brought into the city, to secure them to himself, or keep them from the enemy, as Hezekiah afterward did, 2 Chronicles 32:3, 4.

3. Shear-jashub was to go with Isaiah because his name, signifying “a remnant shall return,” like an inscription, was a memento of final salvation for Judah, and it was a message of encouragement for Ahaz that the prophet would bring. Conduit of the upper pool — “The upper pool” was a water reservoir for city use; and the “conduit” was the pipe or aqueduct by which the water was conveyed to the western side of the city. See notes on 1 Kings 1:33, and 2 Kings 18:17. (See opposite map.) Highway of the fuller’s field — The “field” where, contiguous to the needed water, dyers spread and bleached their cloths, and the “highway” leading to it from the city.

V. 4. Be quiet-Settle thy mind by the belief of that joyful message which I am now to deliver thee from the Lord. Fire-brands-They are not whole fire-brands, but small pieces or ends of them, taken out of the fire, in which there is more smoak than fire. They have more of shew and terror, than of strength. Pekah, king of Israel, he calls only the son of Remaliah, to intimate, that he was unworthy the name of king, as having got that title by usurpation, and the murder of his master, 2 Kings 15:25.

Verse 4. The Syriac omits וארם vearam, “and Syria;” the Vulgate reads ארם Ëlm melech aram, “king of Syria:” one or the other seems to be the true reading. I prefer the former: or, instead of ובנ וארם vearam uben, read בנ jqpw vepekach ben, and pekah son, MS.

Verse 4. Say unto him, Take heed, and be quiet — Settle thy mind by the belief of that joyful message which I am now to deliver to thee from the Lord; Fear not for the two tails, &c. — These two kings and their forces, which, though they seem to threaten utter destruction, yet shall not be able to do much mischief, being not whole fire-brands, but only small pieces or ends of them, taken out of the fire, in which there is more smoke than fire: and the fire will be speedily extinguished. They have more of show and terror than of strength, their power being much wasted and almost consumed. He terms the king of Israel, the son of Remaliah, by way of contempt, intimating that he was unworthy of the name of king, his father being an obscure person, and he having got into the throne by usurpation, and the murder of his master Pekahiah, 2 Kings 15:25.

4. Fear not — Words calculated to soothe the perturbation of David’s house and heart. Had there been faith there would also have been firmness. And the prophet’s cheer for him was confirmed by a lofty contempt for the two invaders. They are but two firebrands already burnt out even to their tails; and they are no longer blazing or burning, but only smoking, almost to extinction. Their day is about closed. Son of Remaliah — Says Hengstenberg: “The Hebrews and Arabians, when they wish to speak reproachfully of any one, omit his proper name, and call him merely son of this or that, especially when his father is but little known or respected. So Saul names David, in contempt, son of Jesse. 1 Samuel 20:27, 31.” In this case the phrase was a reminder that Pekah was a usurper.

Verse 5. Because-Remaliah] All these words are omitted by one MS. and the Syriac; a part of them also by the Septuagint.

Verses 5, 6. Syria and Ephraim have taken evil, or mischievous counsel, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it — Hebrew, hnxyqn, harass, weary, or distress it; and make a breach therein — Violently break in upon the land, or break their power and kingdom, and subdue it to ourselves; and set a king in the midst of it — Or viceroy, that shall act by our authority; even the son of Tabeal — Some considerable captain, in whose fidelity both of them had great confidence; but whether he was an Israelite or Syrian is uncertain, and not material.

V. 6. Let us-Break their power and kingdom and subdue it to ourselves.

Verses 5, 6. Syria and Ephraim have taken evil, or mischievous counsel, saying, Let us go up against Judah, and vex it — Hebrew, hnxyqn, harass, weary, or distress it; and make a breach therein — Violently break in upon the land, or break their power and kingdom, and subdue it to ourselves; and set a king in the midst of it — Or viceroy, that shall act by our authority; even the son of Tabeal — Some considerable captain, in whose fidelity both of them had great confidence; but whether he was an Israelite or Syrian is uncertain, and not material.

Ver. 6. Let us go up against Judah—and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal. The rabbins make him to be a relative of the reigning family in Samaria. They gave away David’s throne before they had conquered it!

6. Make a breach — In the wall, by which the city of Jerusalem could be taken. Son of Tabeal — An individual otherwise unknown. Probably a foreign pretender, whom these invaders meant to enthrone, so as to overthrow “the house of David.”

V. 7. It-Their evil counsel.

Verses 7-9. It shall not stand — Namely, their evil counsel. For the head of Syria is Damascus — As if he had said, As Damascus is the head city of Syria, and Rezin is the head, or king, of Damascus, so shall they continue to be, and not advance themselves, and enlarge their territories, by possessing themselves of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah as they design. Rezin shall be kept within his own bounds, and be head of Damascus only. And, in a similar sense, (verse 9,) Samaria shall continue to be the chief city of the kingdom of Israel, and Pekah shall not conquer Jerusalem as he hopes to do. The Hebrew particle yk, however, which introduces this passage, instead of being tendered for, may, with propriety, be translated though, as it frequently is, (see Joshua 17:18; 1 Samuel 14:39,) and then the meaning will be, Though the head of Syria be Damascus, and the head of Damascus Rezin, and the head of Ephraim be Samaria, &c., yet within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, &c. In this sense Bishop Lowth understands the words, joining the first clause of the ninth verse to the first of the eighth, judging that, by some means, a transposition of it has taken place, which seems very probable. As to the chronological difficulty, which has embarrassed commentators in this place, the best solution seems to be that of Archbishop Usher, (see his Annals of the Old Testament, A.M. 3327,) who explains the latter clause of verse 8, not of the first captivity of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser, but of their final deportation by Esar-haddon, who totally dispeopled the land, and brought new inhabitants from Babylon, Cuthah, and other cities of the Assyrians, to inhabit the cities of Israel. See Ezra 4:2, compared with 2 Kings 17:24. “Compute,” says Bishop Newton, who adopts this explication, “sixty-five years in the reigns of Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh, and the end of them will fall about the twenty-second year of Manasseh; when Esar-haddon, king of Assyria, made the last deportation of the Israelites, and planted other nations in their stead, and in the same expedition probably took Manasseh captive, and carried him to Babylon, 2 Chronicles 33:11. Ephraim was broken from being a kingdom before; but now he was broken from being a people, and from that time to this what account can be given of the people of Israel, as distinct from the people of Judah?” On the Prophecies, vol. 1. p.

204. This interpretation of the passage is also approved by Bishop Lowth. It may seem strange, at first sight, that the prophet, who here foretels the entire destruction of Ephraim, should say nothing about the Syrians. But the Syrians were now in confederacy with Ephraim, and therefore what is here said of one may be well supposed to be spoken of both; and that the destruction of both, at or near the same time, is indicated. In fact, the Syrians and Israelites were such near neighbours, that the Israelites could scarcely be invaded by a foreign army, without Syria being subdued. If ye will not believe, &c. — If ye will not believe what I now speak to you in the name of God; if ye will not put confidence in him, but, distrusting his providence, will seek to the Assyrians for succour; ye shall not be established — Or, preserved in your possessions, any more than the Syrians or Israelites: your state, whether political or ecclesiastical, shall not be upheld and confirmed; but ye shall be distressed and consumed by those to whom you seek for help: the accomplishment of which threatening is recorded 2 Chronicles 28:20. The design of the prophet was to raise up their fainting minds to a reliance on God, rather than on the king of Assyria. See a passage very like this, 2 Chronicles 20:20.

V. 8. Damascus-Damascus shall still continue the capital of the kingdom of Syria; and therefore Jerusalem shall not become a part of Rezin’s dominion: but he shall keep within his own bounds, and be king of Damascus only.

Verses 8. - 9. For the head of Syria, &c.]

“Though the head of Syria be Damascus,

And the head of Damascus Retsin;

Yet within threescore and five years

Ephraim shall be broken, that he be no more a people:

And the head of Ephraim be Samaria;

And the head of Samaria Remaliah’s son.

“Here are six lines, or three distichs, the order of which seems to have been disturbed by a transposition, occasioned by three of the lines beginning with the same word varw verosh, “and the head,” which three lines ought not to have been separated by any other line intervening; but a copyist, having written the first of them, and casting his eye on the third, might easily proceed to write after the first line beginning with varw verosh, that which ought to have followed the third line beginning with varw verosh. Then finding his mistake, to preserve the beauty of his copy, added at the end the distich which should have been in the middle; making that the second distich, which ought to have been the third. For the order as it now stands is preposterous: the destruction of Ephraim is denounced, and then their grandeur is set forth; whereas naturally the representation of the grandeur of Ephraim should precede that of their destruction. And the destruction of Ephraim has no coherence with the grandeur of Syria, simply as such, which it now follows: but it naturally and properly follows the grandeur of Ephraim, joined to that of Syria their ally. “The arrangement then of the whole sentence seems originally to have been thus:—

Though the head of Syria be Damascus,

And the head of Damascus Retsin

And the head of Ephraim be Samaria;

And the head of Samaria Remaliah’s son:

Yet within threescore and five years

Ephraim shall be broken that he be no more a people.”

DR. JUBB.

Threescore and five years] It was sixty-five years from the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, when this prophecy was delivered, to the total depopulation of the kingdom of Israel by Esarhaddon, who carried away the remains of the ten tribes which had been left by Tiglath-pileser, and Shalmaneser, and who planted the country with new inhabitants. That the country was not wholly stripped of its inhabitants by Shalmaneser appears from many passages of the history of Josiah, where Israelites are mentioned as still remaining there, 2 Chronicles 34:6, 7, 33; 35:18; 2 Kings 23:19, 20. This seems to be the best explanation of the chronological difficulty in this place, which has much embarrassed the commentators: see Usserii Annal. V. T. ad an. 3327, and Sir I. Newton, Chronol. p. 283. “That the last deportation of Israel by Esarhaddon was in the sixty-fifth year after the second of Ahaz, is probable for the following reasons: The Jews, in Seder Olam Rabba, and the Talmudists, in D. Kimchi on Ezek. iv., say that Manasseh king of Judah was carried to Babylon by the king of Assyria’s captains, 2 Chronicles 33:11, in the twenty-second year of his reign; that is, before Christ 676, according to Dr. Blair’s tables. And they are probably right in this. It could not be much earlier; as the king of Assyria was not king of Babylon till 680, ibid. As Esarhaddon was then in the neighbourhood of Samaria, it is highly probable that he did then carry away the last remains of Israel, and brought those strangers thither who mention him as their founder, Ezra 4:2. But this year is just the sixty-fifth from the second of Ahaz, which was 740 before Christ. Now the carrying away the remains of Israel, who, till then, though their kingdom was destroyed forty-five years before, and though small in number, might yet keep up some form of being a people, by living according to their own laws, entirely put an end to the people of Israel, as a people separate from all others: for from this time they never returned to their own country in a body, but were confounded with the people of Judah in the captivity; and the whole people, the ten tribes included, were called Jews.”—DR. JUBB.

Two MSS. have twenty-five instead of sixty-five; and two others omit the word five, reading only sixty.

If ye will not believe— “If ye believe not”]

“This clause is very much illustrated by considering the captivity of Manasseh as happening at the same time with this predicted final ruin of Ephraim as a people. The near connection of the two facts makes the prediction of the one naturally to cohere with the prediction of the other. And the words are well suited to this event in the history of the people of Judah: ‘If ye believe not, ye shall not be established;’ that is, unless ye believe this prophecy of the destruction of Israel, ye Jews also, as well as the people of Israel, shall not remain established as a kingdom and people; ye also shall be visited with punishment at the same time: as our Saviour told the Jews in his time, ‘Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish;’ intimating their destruction by the Romans; to which also, as well as to the captivity of Manasseh, and to the Babylonish captivity, the views of the prophet might here extend. The close connection of this threat to the Jews with the prophecy of the destruction of Israel, is another strong proof that the order of the preceding lines above proposed is right.”—DR. JUBB.

“If ye believe not in me.”—The exhortation of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chronicles 20:20, to his people, when God had promised to them, by the prophet Jahaziel, victory over the Moabites and Ammonites, is very like this both in sense and expression, and seems to be delivered in verse: “Hear me, O Judah; and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem;

Believe in JEHOVAH your God, and ye shall be established: Believe his prophets, and ye shall prosper.”

Where both the sense and construction render very probable a conjecture of Archbishop Secker on this place; that instead of yk ki, we should read yb bi. “If ye will not believe in me, ye shall not be established.” So likewise Dr. Durell. The Chaldee has, “If ye will not believe in the words of the prophet;” which seems to be a paraphrase of the reading here proposed. In favour of which it may be farther observed, that in one MS. yk ki is upon a rasure; and another for the last al lo reads alw velo, which would properly follow yb bi, but could not follow yk ki.

Some translate thus, and paraphrase thus: If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. Or, If ye do not give credit, it is because ye are unfaithful. Ye have not been faithful to the grace already given: therefore ye are now incapable of crediting my promises.

Verses 7-9. It shall not stand — Namely, their evil counsel. For the head of Syria is Damascus — As if he had said, As Damascus is the head city of Syria, and Rezin is the head, or king, of Damascus, so shall they continue to be, and not advance themselves, and enlarge their territories, by possessing themselves of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah as they design. Rezin shall be kept within his own bounds, and be head of Damascus only. And, in a similar sense, (verse 9,) Samaria shall continue to be the chief city of the kingdom of Israel, and Pekah shall not conquer Jerusalem as he hopes to do. The Hebrew particle yk, however, which introduces this passage, instead of being tendered for, may, with propriety, be translated though, as it frequently is, (see Joshua 17:18; 1 Samuel 14:39,) and then the meaning will be, Though the head of Syria be Damascus, and the head of Damascus Rezin, and the head of Ephraim be Samaria, &c., yet within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, &c. In this sense Bishop Lowth understands the words, joining the first clause of the ninth verse to the first of the eighth, judging that, by some means, a transposition of it has taken place, which seems very probable. As to the chronological difficulty, which has embarrassed commentators in this place, the best solution seems to be that of Archbishop Usher, (see his Annals of the Old Testament, A.M. 3327,) who explains the latter clause of verse 8, not of the first captivity of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser, but of their final deportation by Esar-haddon, who totally dispeopled the land, and brought new inhabitants from Babylon, Cuthah, and other cities of the Assyrians, to inhabit the cities of Israel. See Ezra 4:2, compared with 2 Kings 17:24. “Compute,” says Bishop Newton, who adopts this explication, “sixty-five years in the reigns of Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh, and the end of them will fall about the twenty-second year of Manasseh; when Esar-haddon, king of Assyria, made the last deportation of the Israelites, and planted other nations in their stead, and in the same expedition probably took Manasseh captive, and carried him to Babylon, 2 Chronicles 33:11. Ephraim was broken from being a kingdom before; but now he was broken from being a people, and from that time to this what account can be given of the people of Israel, as distinct from the people of Judah?” On the Prophecies, vol. 1. p.

204. This interpretation of the passage is also approved by Bishop Lowth. It may seem strange, at first sight, that the prophet, who here foretels the entire destruction of Ephraim, should say nothing about the Syrians. But the Syrians were now in confederacy with Ephraim, and therefore what is here said of one may be well supposed to be spoken of both; and that the destruction of both, at or near the same time, is indicated. In fact, the Syrians and Israelites were such near neighbours, that the Israelites could scarcely be invaded by a foreign army, without Syria being subdued. If ye will not believe, &c. — If ye will not believe what I now speak to you in the name of God; if ye will not put confidence in him, but, distrusting his providence, will seek to the Assyrians for succour; ye shall not be established — Or, preserved in your possessions, any more than the Syrians or Israelites: your state, whether political or ecclesiastical, shall not be upheld and confirmed; but ye shall be distressed and consumed by those to whom you seek for help: the accomplishment of which threatening is recorded 2 Chronicles 28:20. The design of the prophet was to raise up their fainting minds to a reliance on God, rather than on the king of Assyria. See a passage very like this, 2 Chronicles 20:20.

Ver. 8. The head of Syria is Damascus, and the head of Damascus is Rezin. But Jerusalem now had the Lord for her head.—Within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken. Of the accomplishment of this prophecy, no doubt is entertained. The difficulty lies in the dates. Our old English annotations read, within six and five years; that is, within eleven years. But this liberty does not agree with the Hebrew mode of writing. Dr. Lightfoot dates the sixty five years from the twenty third of Uzziah, in which year, he thinks, Isaiah began to prophesy. The opinion more generally received is, that Isaiah speaks of the second and full deportation of the ten tribes. The first was by Shalmaneser, who took Samaria in the ninth year of Hoshea, 2 Kings 18:8; and in the twenty fourth of Ahaz. The second and total carrying away was about sixty five years afterwards, when Ezarhaddon, whose captain took Manasseh when he cowardly fled to the thorns, and brought him to Babylon, which empire was probably then in league with the Assyrian. Thus Ephraim was “broken,” and denationalized.

8, 9. In these verses there is at first sight a degree of complexity which has induced some able commentators to propose amendments of the text. But a closer investigation reveals the real parallelisms. In each verse there is an antecedent statement and a result, and the two statements correspond, and the two results correspond. In verse 8 the statement is, that the ally of Israel — Ephraim — is nothing more than Syria, with its capital, Damascus, culminating like a pyramid in king Rezin; and the result is that Israel — Ephraim — in spite of the alliance, shall be broken up within sixty-five years. That is, the Assyrian kingdom does not amount to much, is a temporary combination, soon to vanish. In verse 9 the statement is that Ephraim, Samaria, and Pekah taper up into a similar and even smaller pyramid; but yet it is only by faith in Jehovah that the third pyramid, Judah, Jerusalem, and Ahaz, can maintain position.

V. 9. Samaria-Samaria shall continue to be the chief city if the kingdom of Israel, and Pekah shall not conquer Jerusalem. If-If you do not believe this, but seek to the Assyrians for succour, ye shall be consumed thereby.

Verses 8. - 9. For the head of Syria, &c.]

“Though the head of Syria be Damascus,

And the head of Damascus Retsin;

Yet within threescore and five years

Ephraim shall be broken, that he be no more a people:

And the head of Ephraim be Samaria;

And the head of Samaria Remaliah’s son.

“Here are six lines, or three distichs, the order of which seems to have been disturbed by a transposition, occasioned by three of the lines beginning with the same word varw verosh, “and the head,” which three lines ought not to have been separated by any other line intervening; but a copyist, having written the first of them, and casting his eye on the third, might easily proceed to write after the first line beginning with varw verosh, that which ought to have followed the third line beginning with varw verosh. Then finding his mistake, to preserve the beauty of his copy, added at the end the distich which should have been in the middle; making that the second distich, which ought to have been the third. For the order as it now stands is preposterous: the destruction of Ephraim is denounced, and then their grandeur is set forth; whereas naturally the representation of the grandeur of Ephraim should precede that of their destruction. And the destruction of Ephraim has no coherence with the grandeur of Syria, simply as such, which it now follows: but it naturally and properly follows the grandeur of Ephraim, joined to that of Syria their ally. “The arrangement then of the whole sentence seems originally to have been thus:—

Though the head of Syria be Damascus,

And the head of Damascus Retsin

And the head of Ephraim be Samaria;

And the head of Samaria Remaliah’s son:

Yet within threescore and five years

Ephraim shall be broken that he be no more a people.”

DR. JUBB.

Threescore and five years] It was sixty-five years from the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, when this prophecy was delivered, to the total depopulation of the kingdom of Israel by Esarhaddon, who carried away the remains of the ten tribes which had been left by Tiglath-pileser, and Shalmaneser, and who planted the country with new inhabitants. That the country was not wholly stripped of its inhabitants by Shalmaneser appears from many passages of the history of Josiah, where Israelites are mentioned as still remaining there, 2 Chronicles 34:6, 7, 33; 35:18; 2 Kings 23:19, 20. This seems to be the best explanation of the chronological difficulty in this place, which has much embarrassed the commentators: see Usserii Annal. V. T. ad an. 3327, and Sir I. Newton, Chronol. p. 283. “That the last deportation of Israel by Esarhaddon was in the sixty-fifth year after the second of Ahaz, is probable for the following reasons: The Jews, in Seder Olam Rabba, and the Talmudists, in D. Kimchi on Ezek. iv., say that Manasseh king of Judah was carried to Babylon by the king of Assyria’s captains, 2 Chronicles 33:11, in the twenty-second year of his reign; that is, before Christ 676, according to Dr. Blair’s tables. And they are probably right in this. It could not be much earlier; as the king of Assyria was not king of Babylon till 680, ibid. As Esarhaddon was then in the neighbourhood of Samaria, it is highly probable that he did then carry away the last remains of Israel, and brought those strangers thither who mention him as their founder, Ezra 4:2. But this year is just the sixty-fifth from the second of Ahaz, which was 740 before Christ. Now the carrying away the remains of Israel, who, till then, though their kingdom was destroyed forty-five years before, and though small in number, might yet keep up some form of being a people, by living according to their own laws, entirely put an end to the people of Israel, as a people separate from all others: for from this time they never returned to their own country in a body, but were confounded with the people of Judah in the captivity; and the whole people, the ten tribes included, were called Jews.”—DR. JUBB.

Two MSS. have twenty-five instead of sixty-five; and two others omit the word five, reading only sixty.

If ye will not believe— “If ye believe not”]

“This clause is very much illustrated by considering the captivity of Manasseh as happening at the same time with this predicted final ruin of Ephraim as a people. The near connection of the two facts makes the prediction of the one naturally to cohere with the prediction of the other. And the words are well suited to this event in the history of the people of Judah: ‘If ye believe not, ye shall not be established;’ that is, unless ye believe this prophecy of the destruction of Israel, ye Jews also, as well as the people of Israel, shall not remain established as a kingdom and people; ye also shall be visited with punishment at the same time: as our Saviour told the Jews in his time, ‘Unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish;’ intimating their destruction by the Romans; to which also, as well as to the captivity of Manasseh, and to the Babylonish captivity, the views of the prophet might here extend. The close connection of this threat to the Jews with the prophecy of the destruction of Israel, is another strong proof that the order of the preceding lines above proposed is right.”—DR. JUBB.

“If ye believe not in me.”—The exhortation of Jehoshaphat, 2 Chronicles 20:20, to his people, when God had promised to them, by the prophet Jahaziel, victory over the Moabites and Ammonites, is very like this both in sense and expression, and seems to be delivered in verse: “Hear me, O Judah; and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem;

Believe in JEHOVAH your God, and ye shall be established: Believe his prophets, and ye shall prosper.”

Where both the sense and construction render very probable a conjecture of Archbishop Secker on this place; that instead of yk ki, we should read yb bi. “If ye will not believe in me, ye shall not be established.” So likewise Dr. Durell. The Chaldee has, “If ye will not believe in the words of the prophet;” which seems to be a paraphrase of the reading here proposed. In favour of which it may be farther observed, that in one MS. yk ki is upon a rasure; and another for the last al lo reads alw velo, which would properly follow yb bi, but could not follow yk ki.

Some translate thus, and paraphrase thus: If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. Or, If ye do not give credit, it is because ye are unfaithful. Ye have not been faithful to the grace already given: therefore ye are now incapable of crediting my promises.

Verses 7-9. It shall not stand — Namely, their evil counsel. For the head of Syria is Damascus — As if he had said, As Damascus is the head city of Syria, and Rezin is the head, or king, of Damascus, so shall they continue to be, and not advance themselves, and enlarge their territories, by possessing themselves of Jerusalem and the kingdom of Judah as they design. Rezin shall be kept within his own bounds, and be head of Damascus only. And, in a similar sense, (verse 9,) Samaria shall continue to be the chief city of the kingdom of Israel, and Pekah shall not conquer Jerusalem as he hopes to do. The Hebrew particle yk, however, which introduces this passage, instead of being tendered for, may, with propriety, be translated though, as it frequently is, (see Joshua 17:18; 1 Samuel 14:39,) and then the meaning will be, Though the head of Syria be Damascus, and the head of Damascus Rezin, and the head of Ephraim be Samaria, &c., yet within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, &c. In this sense Bishop Lowth understands the words, joining the first clause of the ninth verse to the first of the eighth, judging that, by some means, a transposition of it has taken place, which seems very probable. As to the chronological difficulty, which has embarrassed commentators in this place, the best solution seems to be that of Archbishop Usher, (see his Annals of the Old Testament, A.M. 3327,) who explains the latter clause of verse 8, not of the first captivity of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser, but of their final deportation by Esar-haddon, who totally dispeopled the land, and brought new inhabitants from Babylon, Cuthah, and other cities of the Assyrians, to inhabit the cities of Israel. See Ezra 4:2, compared with 2 Kings 17:24. “Compute,” says Bishop Newton, who adopts this explication, “sixty-five years in the reigns of Ahaz, Hezekiah, and Manasseh, and the end of them will fall about the twenty-second year of Manasseh; when Esar-haddon, king of Assyria, made the last deportation of the Israelites, and planted other nations in their stead, and in the same expedition probably took Manasseh captive, and carried him to Babylon, 2 Chronicles 33:11. Ephraim was broken from being a kingdom before; but now he was broken from being a people, and from that time to this what account can be given of the people of Israel, as distinct from the people of Judah?” On the Prophecies, vol. 1. p.

204. This interpretation of the passage is also approved by Bishop Lowth. It may seem strange, at first sight, that the prophet, who here foretels the entire destruction of Ephraim, should say nothing about the Syrians. But the Syrians were now in confederacy with Ephraim, and therefore what is here said of one may be well supposed to be spoken of both; and that the destruction of both, at or near the same time, is indicated. In fact, the Syrians and Israelites were such near neighbours, that the Israelites could scarcely be invaded by a foreign army, without Syria being subdued. If ye will not believe, &c. — If ye will not believe what I now speak to you in the name of God; if ye will not put confidence in him, but, distrusting his providence, will seek to the Assyrians for succour; ye shall not be established — Or, preserved in your possessions, any more than the Syrians or Israelites: your state, whether political or ecclesiastical, shall not be upheld and confirmed; but ye shall be distressed and consumed by those to whom you seek for help: the accomplishment of which threatening is recorded 2 Chronicles 28:20. The design of the prophet was to raise up their fainting minds to a reliance on God, rather than on the king of Assyria. See a passage very like this, 2 Chronicles 20:20.

Ver. 9. If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established. I speak to you by the Word of the Lord. I speak with the sign of my son in my hand. If ye will not believe, if ye fight with the allied kings in unbelief and despair, you will utterly be routed, and your country ruined.

8, 9. In these verses there is at first sight a degree of complexity which has induced some able commentators to propose amendments of the text. But a closer investigation reveals the real parallelisms. In each verse there is an antecedent statement and a result, and the two statements correspond, and the two results correspond. In verse 8 the statement is, that the ally of Israel — Ephraim — is nothing more than Syria, with its capital, Damascus, culminating like a pyramid in king Rezin; and the result is that Israel — Ephraim — in spite of the alliance, shall be broken up within sixty-five years. That is, the Assyrian kingdom does not amount to much, is a temporary combination, soon to vanish. In verse 9 the statement is that Ephraim, Samaria, and Pekah taper up into a similar and even smaller pyramid; but yet it is only by faith in Jehovah that the third pyramid, Judah, Jerusalem, and Ahaz, can maintain position.

Verses 10-12. The Lord spake again unto Ahaz — Namely, by Isaiah. “From hence to verse 16, we have the confirmation of the promise, by a sign to Ahaz, in the name of God; in which we have, first, the prophet’s address to Ahaz, exhorting him, by the divine command, to ask whatever sign he would, with the reply of Ahaz, verses 10-12: and, secondly, a declaration of God’s good pleasure to give an illustrious sign, which he offers rather to the true believers than to a hypocritical and incredulous king, verses 13-16.” Through the strong and forcible objections which some learned men have made against applying the prophecy contained in these verses to Christ, in its primary sense, Huetius, Grotius, and some other commentators, have been led to suppose that it immediately related to the birth of a child in a natural way, and that it only refers in a secondary sense to the birth of Christ. Thus Bishop Lowth observes, “The obvious, literal meaning of the prophecy, not excluding a higher secondary sense, is this: ‘That, within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive, and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years, (compare Isaiah 8:4,) the enemies of Judah should be destroyed.’” But, surely, as Dr. Doddridge observes, on Matthew 1:23, “A son’s being born of one, then a virgin, when she was married, was no such miraculous event as to answer such a pompous introduction” as we have here. Of this the reader may easily judge by attending to the prophet’s words, and a short and easy paraphrase upon them. Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God — A sign is a miracle wrought for the confirmation of some message, promise, or doctrine delivered from God. “Some unusual or extraordinary effect, production, or phenomenon, which could not be explained from natural causes, but only from the omnipotence of the Ruler of the universe; which, moreover, signified that God was present, and ratified the word, or declaration, for which the sign was given.” See Exodus 4:8; Judges 6:17; Isaiah 38:22. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above — Demand some prodigy to be wrought, either in earth or heaven, at thy pleasure. By speaking thus, the prophet signified that “all nature was subject to the power and control of that God, whom he calls the God of Ahaz, as being the God of his fathers, and in order to admonish him wherein to place his confidence.” But Ahaz said, I will not ask — This refusal did not proceed from faith in God and true humility, but rather from his contempt of God, and disregard of his word, as is sufficiently evident from the history of his life. He probably feared lest, if such a sign should be given as he did not choose, he should be compelled to desist from his purpose of calling in the aid of Assyria, which he could not well have called in after Jehovah had given a sign to the contrary. Besides, he did not dare to commit himself to that divine favour and providence, which he had heretofore so proudly despised; preferring to it the protection of other and false deities. See Vitringa. Neither will I tempt the Lord — By distrusting his providence, or asking a sign, as if I questioned the truth of his word. But this was deep hypocrisy, as appears by the prophet’s answer.

10. Moreover… again — In addition to these encouragements is offered a sign to confirm them. The very offer of a “sign,” and especially of a “sign” at Ahaz’s choice, however extraordinary, implies his want of faith in the assurances. The Lord — That is, Jehovah God; for wherever the word LORD in capitals appears in the Old Testament, the Hebrew is generally Jehovah. And Jehovah was the proper name of the God of Judah, as Moloch was the proper name of the god of Ammon, perhaps, also, of Phoenicia or Tyre. The pagans believed in the reality of national gods, of different degrees of power, holding the most powerful nations to be made so by their gods being most powerful. The cause of Ahaz’s undervaluing Isaiah’s encouragements was, his being on this point a pagan. He had already “sacrificed unto the gods of Damascus, which smote him: and he said, Because the gods of the kings of Syria help them, therefore will I sacrifice to them, that they may help me.” 2 Chronicles 28:23. But at this present moment he has his mind’s eye upon still mightier deities, even the gods of ASSYRIA. So that the issue now is between Jehovah and Assyria. Isaiah and orthodox Israel held that Jehovah was indeed their own national God; but that he was also God of the earth, sole and supreme, all other gods being fictions, and their images and idols but fancy furniture, worthy to be burnt. Spake — Through the mouth of Isaiah.

Verse 11. In the depth— “Go deep to the grave”] So Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, and the Vulgate.

Verses 10-12. The Lord spake again unto Ahaz — Namely, by Isaiah. “From hence to verse 16, we have the confirmation of the promise, by a sign to Ahaz, in the name of God; in which we have, first, the prophet’s address to Ahaz, exhorting him, by the divine command, to ask whatever sign he would, with the reply of Ahaz, verses 10-12: and, secondly, a declaration of God’s good pleasure to give an illustrious sign, which he offers rather to the true believers than to a hypocritical and incredulous king, verses 13-16.” Through the strong and forcible objections which some learned men have made against applying the prophecy contained in these verses to Christ, in its primary sense, Huetius, Grotius, and some other commentators, have been led to suppose that it immediately related to the birth of a child in a natural way, and that it only refers in a secondary sense to the birth of Christ. Thus Bishop Lowth observes, “The obvious, literal meaning of the prophecy, not excluding a higher secondary sense, is this: ‘That, within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive, and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years, (compare Isaiah 8:4,) the enemies of Judah should be destroyed.’” But, surely, as Dr. Doddridge observes, on Matthew 1:23, “A son’s being born of one, then a virgin, when she was married, was no such miraculous event as to answer such a pompous introduction” as we have here. Of this the reader may easily judge by attending to the prophet’s words, and a short and easy paraphrase upon them. Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God — A sign is a miracle wrought for the confirmation of some message, promise, or doctrine delivered from God. “Some unusual or extraordinary effect, production, or phenomenon, which could not be explained from natural causes, but only from the omnipotence of the Ruler of the universe; which, moreover, signified that God was present, and ratified the word, or declaration, for which the sign was given.” See Exodus 4:8; Judges 6:17; Isaiah 38:22. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above — Demand some prodigy to be wrought, either in earth or heaven, at thy pleasure. By speaking thus, the prophet signified that “all nature was subject to the power and control of that God, whom he calls the God of Ahaz, as being the God of his fathers, and in order to admonish him wherein to place his confidence.” But Ahaz said, I will not ask — This refusal did not proceed from faith in God and true humility, but rather from his contempt of God, and disregard of his word, as is sufficiently evident from the history of his life. He probably feared lest, if such a sign should be given as he did not choose, he should be compelled to desist from his purpose of calling in the aid of Assyria, which he could not well have called in after Jehovah had given a sign to the contrary. Besides, he did not dare to commit himself to that divine favour and providence, which he had heretofore so proudly despised; preferring to it the protection of other and false deities. See Vitringa. Neither will I tempt the Lord — By distrusting his providence, or asking a sign, as if I questioned the truth of his word. But this was deep hypocrisy, as appears by the prophet’s answer.

11. Ask — The extraordinary option here offered to Ahaz indicates the nature of his scepticism. Any thing within the proper limits of a “sign” he may demand. And here a “sign” is nothing less than a miracle; an immediate supernatural performance, showing that divine power sustained the predictions uttered, and would sustain a firm faith in Jehovah against the most powerful nations. Depth… height — In the sky above or on the earth, or even under the earth below. It is evidently a visible and immediate phenomenon that is offered.

V. 12. I will not-By asking a sign, as if I questioned the truth of his word: but this was deep hypocrisy.

Verses 10-12. The Lord spake again unto Ahaz — Namely, by Isaiah. “From hence to verse 16, we have the confirmation of the promise, by a sign to Ahaz, in the name of God; in which we have, first, the prophet’s address to Ahaz, exhorting him, by the divine command, to ask whatever sign he would, with the reply of Ahaz, verses 10-12: and, secondly, a declaration of God’s good pleasure to give an illustrious sign, which he offers rather to the true believers than to a hypocritical and incredulous king, verses 13-16.” Through the strong and forcible objections which some learned men have made against applying the prophecy contained in these verses to Christ, in its primary sense, Huetius, Grotius, and some other commentators, have been led to suppose that it immediately related to the birth of a child in a natural way, and that it only refers in a secondary sense to the birth of Christ. Thus Bishop Lowth observes, “The obvious, literal meaning of the prophecy, not excluding a higher secondary sense, is this: ‘That, within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive, and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years, (compare Isaiah 8:4,) the enemies of Judah should be destroyed.’” But, surely, as Dr. Doddridge observes, on Matthew 1:23, “A son’s being born of one, then a virgin, when she was married, was no such miraculous event as to answer such a pompous introduction” as we have here. Of this the reader may easily judge by attending to the prophet’s words, and a short and easy paraphrase upon them. Ask thee a sign of the Lord thy God — A sign is a miracle wrought for the confirmation of some message, promise, or doctrine delivered from God. “Some unusual or extraordinary effect, production, or phenomenon, which could not be explained from natural causes, but only from the omnipotence of the Ruler of the universe; which, moreover, signified that God was present, and ratified the word, or declaration, for which the sign was given.” See Exodus 4:8; Judges 6:17; Isaiah 38:22. Ask it either in the depth, or in the height above — Demand some prodigy to be wrought, either in earth or heaven, at thy pleasure. By speaking thus, the prophet signified that “all nature was subject to the power and control of that God, whom he calls the God of Ahaz, as being the God of his fathers, and in order to admonish him wherein to place his confidence.” But Ahaz said, I will not ask — This refusal did not proceed from faith in God and true humility, but rather from his contempt of God, and disregard of his word, as is sufficiently evident from the history of his life. He probably feared lest, if such a sign should be given as he did not choose, he should be compelled to desist from his purpose of calling in the aid of Assyria, which he could not well have called in after Jehovah had given a sign to the contrary. Besides, he did not dare to commit himself to that divine favour and providence, which he had heretofore so proudly despised; preferring to it the protection of other and false deities. See Vitringa. Neither will I tempt the Lord — By distrusting his providence, or asking a sign, as if I questioned the truth of his word. But this was deep hypocrisy, as appears by the prophet’s answer.

12. Neither will I tempt the Lord — Jehovah. A master-stroke of dissimulation. Ahaz makes skilful use of his Hebrew education by quoting a text in Deuteronomy 6:16. He does this perhaps as a parry against Isaiah, perhaps to suit the orthodox part of his audience. To tempt Jehovah is to put him to the test to see if he has power. And here Ahaz assumes to be more pious than Jehovah himself, who offered the test.

V. 13. David-He reproves them all, because they were the king’s counsellors. Is it a small thing-Is it not wickedness enough. My God-To vex God’s prophets and people, with your oppressions and horrid impieties. And by your ingratitude and unbelief, and disobedience of his commands.

Verses 13, 14. And he said, Hear now, O house of David — The prophet no longer addresses himself to Ahaz singly, who would not regard his words, but to the whole royal family, all of whom he reproves, as being the king’s counsellors, and promoting the design of sending for the Assyrian succours. Is it a small thing for you — Is it not wickedness enough; to weary men? — To vex God’s prophets and people with your oppressions and horrid impieties? But will ye weary my God also? — By your ingratitude, unbelief, and disobedience to his commands? Therefore — Because you despise me, and the sign which I now offer you, God, of his own free grace, will send you a more honourable messenger, and give you a nobler sign. Or, Nevertheless, (as the particle ˆkl often signifies,) the Lord will give you a sign — Although you deserve no sign nor favour, yet for the comfort of those few believers who are among you, and to leave you without excuse, I shall remind you of another and greater sign, namely, of your deliverance and preservation; which God hath promised, and will in his due time perform. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, &c. — One, in the strictest sense, a virgin, as the Hebrew word, hml[, almah, here used, properly signifies, and is translated by all the ancient interpreters, being never once used in Scripture in any other sense, as several learned men have proved, against the pretensions of the modern Jews. See particularly Bishop Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messias, part 2. chap. 5., and Dr. Whitby on Matthew 1:23. Indeed, independent of the term rendered virgin, the text implies it. For, as the last-mentioned writer observes, “this promise is made as a sign, or miracle, to confirm the house of David in God’s promise made to him of the perpetuity of his kingdom. Now what sign or miracle could it be, that a woman should be with child, after the ordinary manner? Where is the sign or wonder in this? Had no more been intended, what need was there of these words, The Lord himself shall give you a sign? What need of that solemn notice, Behold! there being nothing new or strange in all this.” Add to this, that the original expressions are very emphatical, and are literally rendered by Bishop Lowth, Behold, the virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son, namely, that only woman, who ever was, or should be a mother, while she was still a virgin: and whose offspring, being conceived and born without the concurrence of man, was, therefore, with peculiar propriety, denominated and characterized, the seed of the woman, being her seed exclusively.

But it is inquired, how this birth from a virgin, which was not to happen till many ages after, could be a sign to Ahaz and the Jews, of their deliverance from present danger; and it is urged, that “this promise, being made to Ahaz as a sign, must have relation to a child born in his time, and therefore not to our Jesus, born above seven hundred years after his death.” To this, Dr. Whitby answers, “This objection is founded on a mistake: this promise, or sign, being not given to Ahaz, who, we have just seen, refused to ask a sign; but to the house of David, according to verse 13. Now the house of David being then in great danger of being cut off and extinguished, by the kings of Israel and Syria, the promise of a Messiah, who was to be of the seed of David, and to sit upon his throne, was a great security that that house should not be extinguished, and so was a proper remedy against those fears.” To this may be added, that this promised birth of the Messiah supposed not only the preservation of the house of David, but also the preservation of that city, and nation, and tribe, in and of which he was to be born: therefore there was no cause to fear that ruin which their enemies now threatened. This argument is greatly strengthened by the following clause: And shall call — That is, his virgin mother shall call; his name Immanuel — The mother usually giving the name to the child, and this mother having a peculiar right to do it, the child having no human father. To be called, in Scripture language, is the same thing as to be: the meaning is, He shall be Immanuel, that is, God with us; God dwelling among us in our nature, the Word made flesh, John 1:14. God and man meeting in one person, and being a mediator between God and men. Now to whom but the Messiah was this applicable? Or waiving the import of the name; supposing the being called by this name did not imply that the child or person should be what his name signified, namely God with us, what other person, save the Messiah can be pointed out, that was called by this name? To what other event can this passage of the prophecy be made to accord? What woman, then a virgin, and afterward marrying, and bearing a son, called that son Immanuel? Surely they who contend for this sense of the prophet’s words, should point out the person so called. None have done this, and none can do it. No such person ever existed. As to what some have suggested, that Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, might be meant, and be said to be called by that name, because he was the future governor of the land, (see chap. 8:8,) and God was with him, it must be observed, that he was born at least nine years before this prophecy was delivered, even before Ahaz came to the throne, and therefore his birth could not be intended by the prophet here. But not to pursue the argument further, which certainly is not necessary in so clear a case; we will only add, that even if it could be supposed that the prophet did first and immediately refer to some child to be then born, yet, as Bishop Lowth observes, (in words hardly consistent with what he had said, as quoted above, of the primary sense of the passage,) “The prophecy is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign is so marked, as a sign selected and given by God himself, after Ahaz had rejected the offer of any sign of his own choosing, out of the whole compass of nature; the terms of the prophecy are so peculiar, and the name of the child so expressive, containing in them much more than the circumstances of the birth of a common child required, or even admitted; that we may easily suppose, that, in minds prepared by the general expectation of a great deliverer, to spring from the house of David, they raised hopes far beyond what the present occasion suggested; especially when it was found that in the subsequent prophecy, delivered immediately afterward, this child, called Immanuel, is treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who could this be, other than the heir of the throne of David? under which character a great, and even a divine person had been promised. St. Matthew, therefore, in applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ, does it, not merely in the way of accommodating the words of the prophet to a suitable case, not in the prophet’s view; but takes it in its strictest, clearest, and most important sense, and applies it according to the original design, and principal intention of the prophet.”

13. O house of David — Wearied, truly, with Ahaz’s contemptuous trifling, the prophet turns from him personally, as if too far gone for further hope or notice, and addresses himself to the “house of David.” See note on verse 2. The sign now to be given is not to be given to Ahaz individually, nor to him at all, except as he is part of the “house of David,” the royal stock extending to the Messiah, the Messianic kindred. And inferentially it is given for the consolation of all the faithful in Judah. Weary men — Poor mortals like Isaiah and his adherents. My God also — In verse 11 the prophet had explicitly, to Ahaz, styled Jehovah “thy God,” as a reminder of his allegiance to him; he now, as it were, retracts, and styles him exclusively “my God.”

V. 14. Therefore-Because you despise me, and the sign which I now offer to you, God of his own free grace will send you a more honourable messenger, and give you a nobler sign. A sign-Of your deliverance. But how was this birth, which was not to happen ‘till many ages after, a sign of their deliverance from present danger? This promised birth supposed the preservation of that city, and nation and tribe, in and of which the Messiah was to be born; and therefore there was no cause to fear that ruin which their enemies now threatened. Immanuel-God with us; God dwelling among us, in our nature, John 1:14. God and man meeting in one person, and being a mediator between God and men. For the design of these words is not so much to relate the name by which Christ should commonly he called, as to describe his nature and office.

Verse 14. The Lord— “JEHOVAH”] For ynda Adonai, twenty-five of Kennicott’s MSS., nine ancient, and fourteen of Deuteronomy Rossi’s, read hwhy Jehovah. And so Isaiah 7:20, eighteen MSS. Immanuel.] For lawnm[ Immanuel, many MSS. and editions have la wnm[ immanu El, God with us.

Verses 13, 14. And he said, Hear now, O house of David — The prophet no longer addresses himself to Ahaz singly, who would not regard his words, but to the whole royal family, all of whom he reproves, as being the king’s counsellors, and promoting the design of sending for the Assyrian succours. Is it a small thing for you — Is it not wickedness enough; to weary men? — To vex God’s prophets and people with your oppressions and horrid impieties? But will ye weary my God also? — By your ingratitude, unbelief, and disobedience to his commands? Therefore — Because you despise me, and the sign which I now offer you, God, of his own free grace, will send you a more honourable messenger, and give you a nobler sign. Or, Nevertheless, (as the particle ˆkl often signifies,) the Lord will give you a sign — Although you deserve no sign nor favour, yet for the comfort of those few believers who are among you, and to leave you without excuse, I shall remind you of another and greater sign, namely, of your deliverance and preservation; which God hath promised, and will in his due time perform. Behold, a virgin shall conceive, &c. — One, in the strictest sense, a virgin, as the Hebrew word, hml[, almah, here used, properly signifies, and is translated by all the ancient interpreters, being never once used in Scripture in any other sense, as several learned men have proved, against the pretensions of the modern Jews. See particularly Bishop Kidder’s Demonstration of the Messias, part 2. chap. 5., and Dr. Whitby on Matthew 1:23. Indeed, independent of the term rendered virgin, the text implies it. For, as the last-mentioned writer observes, “this promise is made as a sign, or miracle, to confirm the house of David in God’s promise made to him of the perpetuity of his kingdom. Now what sign or miracle could it be, that a woman should be with child, after the ordinary manner? Where is the sign or wonder in this? Had no more been intended, what need was there of these words, The Lord himself shall give you a sign? What need of that solemn notice, Behold! there being nothing new or strange in all this.” Add to this, that the original expressions are very emphatical, and are literally rendered by Bishop Lowth, Behold, the virgin conceiveth, and beareth a son, namely, that only woman, who ever was, or should be a mother, while she was still a virgin: and whose offspring, being conceived and born without the concurrence of man, was, therefore, with peculiar propriety, denominated and characterized, the seed of the woman, being her seed exclusively.

But it is inquired, how this birth from a virgin, which was not to happen till many ages after, could be a sign to Ahaz and the Jews, of their deliverance from present danger; and it is urged, that “this promise, being made to Ahaz as a sign, must have relation to a child born in his time, and therefore not to our Jesus, born above seven hundred years after his death.” To this, Dr. Whitby answers, “This objection is founded on a mistake: this promise, or sign, being not given to Ahaz, who, we have just seen, refused to ask a sign; but to the house of David, according to verse 13. Now the house of David being then in great danger of being cut off and extinguished, by the kings of Israel and Syria, the promise of a Messiah, who was to be of the seed of David, and to sit upon his throne, was a great security that that house should not be extinguished, and so was a proper remedy against those fears.” To this may be added, that this promised birth of the Messiah supposed not only the preservation of the house of David, but also the preservation of that city, and nation, and tribe, in and of which he was to be born: therefore there was no cause to fear that ruin which their enemies now threatened. This argument is greatly strengthened by the following clause: And shall call — That is, his virgin mother shall call; his name Immanuel — The mother usually giving the name to the child, and this mother having a peculiar right to do it, the child having no human father. To be called, in Scripture language, is the same thing as to be: the meaning is, He shall be Immanuel, that is, God with us; God dwelling among us in our nature, the Word made flesh, John 1:14. God and man meeting in one person, and being a mediator between God and men. Now to whom but the Messiah was this applicable? Or waiving the import of the name; supposing the being called by this name did not imply that the child or person should be what his name signified, namely God with us, what other person, save the Messiah can be pointed out, that was called by this name? To what other event can this passage of the prophecy be made to accord? What woman, then a virgin, and afterward marrying, and bearing a son, called that son Immanuel? Surely they who contend for this sense of the prophet’s words, should point out the person so called. None have done this, and none can do it. No such person ever existed. As to what some have suggested, that Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, might be meant, and be said to be called by that name, because he was the future governor of the land, (see chap. 8:8,) and God was with him, it must be observed, that he was born at least nine years before this prophecy was delivered, even before Ahaz came to the throne, and therefore his birth could not be intended by the prophet here. But not to pursue the argument further, which certainly is not necessary in so clear a case; we will only add, that even if it could be supposed that the prophet did first and immediately refer to some child to be then born, yet, as Bishop Lowth observes, (in words hardly consistent with what he had said, as quoted above, of the primary sense of the passage,) “The prophecy is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign is so marked, as a sign selected and given by God himself, after Ahaz had rejected the offer of any sign of his own choosing, out of the whole compass of nature; the terms of the prophecy are so peculiar, and the name of the child so expressive, containing in them much more than the circumstances of the birth of a common child required, or even admitted; that we may easily suppose, that, in minds prepared by the general expectation of a great deliverer, to spring from the house of David, they raised hopes far beyond what the present occasion suggested; especially when it was found that in the subsequent prophecy, delivered immediately afterward, this child, called Immanuel, is treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who could this be, other than the heir of the throne of David? under which character a great, and even a divine person had been promised. St. Matthew, therefore, in applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ, does it, not merely in the way of accommodating the words of the prophet to a suitable case, not in the prophet’s view; but takes it in its strictest, clearest, and most important sense, and applies it according to the original design, and principal intention of the prophet.”

Ver. 14. Behold, a virgin shall conceive. Hebrews hml[ alma, halmah. The LXX, parqenov, a virgin. The Chaldaic and the targums of Onkelos and of Jonathan have virgin, or damsel that has not known a man. The same Hebrew word is given to Rebekah, Genesis 24:43; “when the virgin comes to draw water.” So Psalm 68:25. “The virgins playing with timbrels,” who followed David, playing before the ark.—The name of the Son that the virgin should bear, Immanuel, God with us, is equally striking. The Holy Ghost, foreseeing what opposition would be made by unbelievers, has also described the kingdom of the virgin’s Son: Isaiah 8:8. The king of Assyria “shall fill the breadth of thy land, oh Immanuel.” The whole therefore of David’s land, overrun by the Assyrians, was the land of this Immanuel.

Now, as this text was a glorious pillar in favour of the divine and human geniture of Christ, it might easily be conceived that the Jews would do all in their power to set aside its force. Accordingly we find Justin Martyr, in his dialogues with Trypho the Jew, accusing them of falsifying both the Hebrew text and the Greek version, by translating alma, Neaniskh, “a young woman” shall conceive and bear a son, namely, the wife of king Ahaz! Truly a lost case. Why say behold? What is more common than for a young wife to have a child? We know not that Ahaz had any son, except king Hezekiah, who was already born; and of an unborn and unknown prince, why should all western Asia be called, Thy land, oh Immanuel? The Jew is completely bewildered here; he can find no such king, no such kingdom. This argument in strengthened by reference to Amos 2:7, where a young woman that had known a man is called paidikh.

14. The Lord himself — Ahaz has refused to choose, and Jehovah will now present a “sign” of his own choosing. It will not be for Ahaz alone, but for the “house of David” and all believers in Judah. It will not be present and visible to the bodily eye, but will be vividly present to the eye of faith. It is the permanent “sign” of all past prophecy, type, and sacrifice furnished to God’s Israel — the MESSIAH. And the permanent consolation of that “sign” is, that the “house of David” is indestructible until that “sign” is verified. And so Simeon styles the Messiah, “A sign which shall be spoken against.” Luke 1:34. To those who ask how the future Messiah could be a present sign of the failure of the invaders of Judah we answer, such a sign was offered to Ahaz and refused. This does not claim to be such a sign; but it presents the standing sign of Messianic salvation to the “house of David,” brought out with a most resplendent clearness for the consolation of the faithful, and on it is based a prediction of the speedy overthrow of the enemy, the fulfilment of which will soon be another confirmation of a future Messianic salvation. Of that Messiah we have now these four predicates: that he is virgin-born, that he is incarnate, that his being born is now visionally present, and that his present advent is envisioned to form a measure and token of immediate salvation from these enemies of the theocracy.

[Our interpretation of this prophecy in Matthew 1:23 (where see notes) was written near two decades ago, and remains essentially unchanged. Rejecting all different or secondary applications we affirm it as designating the Messiah alone. Behold — Contemplate this sign with the eye of faith. A virgin — Here comes the first misfortune, the substitution by our translators of “a” for THE. The “virgin!” What THE “virgin?” The virgin well known and notable to the “house of David” as predicted in the Edenic promise (Genesis 3:5) to the woman that “her seed,” and not the man’s, should bruise the serpent’s head; “her seed” solely, because clearly his father is to be divine. And secondly, Isaiah’s contemporary prophet, Micah, says of Bethlehem:” Out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting; therefore will he give them up, until the time that she which travaileth hath bought forth.” Micah 5:2, 3. This bearer brings forth a divine offspring, and consequently not begotten by man, but the son of the virgin mother. And so a virgin birth is supposed wherever a divine paternity is supposed, as in Psalm 2:7; Isaiah 9:6. The Hebrew word for “virgin,” here, is not indeed the specific word for a virgin in that language. The word signifies a girl of marriageable age, but unmarried. It sustains about the same relation as our word maiden does to “virgin.” But that a chaste and unmarried maiden is meant is plain from the fact that it is of this maiden that the conceiving and bringing forth are predicated. The prophet need not emphasize the virginity of the maiden mother of a divine Son. It is not a married woman once a maiden, but the unmarried maiden, that conceives. To have predicated the conceiving of a maiden, and yet omit the fact that she would be married before conceiving, would convey an offensive implication. The fact that the Septuagint translators rendered the word h parqenov, the virgin, indicates that they knew that while the Hebrew word was not precisely “virgin,” yet what the prophet meant was “virgin,” and clearly evinces that what virgin was meant was matter of public notoriety. Shall conceive, and bear — Here is the second misfortune, that the present is rendered in the future, the real rendering being, a virgin conceives and bears a son. And that the prophet consciously meant a present tense is clear from the fact that the next verb is truly future: shall call. The virgin now bears, afterward she will call his name. That is, the conceiving and bearing are ideally present; so present that the child’s birth and growth are easy measure of fulfilling of passing events. So the similar prophecy, in chap. 9:6, may be brought into parallel: The virgin conceives and bears a

SON — And shall call his name

IMMANUEL.

Unto us a Child is born, unto us

a SON is given… shall be called…

The mighty GOD.

Here are presented in both passages the virgin maternity, the present being born, the incarnate offspring. Shall call his name Immanuel — God with us. That this expresses a true incarnation is evident from the virgin birth. For reciprocally as the birth of a divine Son implies, as above shown, a virgin mother, so a virgin mother implies and is, for the very purpose of an incarnation — a God-man. To those who accept Matthew as a conclusive interpreter, this meaning is of course decided. Those who think that Matthew simply reads into the words a desired meaning, may be reminded that the parallel passage (Isaiah 9:6) styles him “the mighty God.” The two passages read together are an unanswerable proof of a described incarnation. It confirms all this reasoning that, in Isaiah 8:8, Judah is called, “Thy land, O Immanuel,” as if he were even now its divine proprietor, by whom it is prevented from being completely deluged by its foes.

V. 15. Butter-The common food of children in that country. He-The virgin’s son. Know-To discern between things good and evil.

Verse 15. That he may know— “When he shall know”] “Though so much has been written on this important passage, there is an obscurity and inconsequence which still attends it, in the general run of all the interpretations given to it by the most learned. And this obscure incoherence is given to it by the false rendering of a Hebrew particle, viz., l le, in לדעתו ledato. This has been generally rendered, either ‘that he may know,’ or ‘till he know.’ It is capable of either version, without doubt; but either of these versions makes Isaiah 7:15 incoherent and inconsistent with Isaiah 7:16. For Isaiah 7:16 plainly means to give a reason for the assertion in Isaiah 7:15, because it is subjoined to it by the particle yk ki, for. But it is no reason why a child should eat butter and honey till he was at an age to distinguish, that before that time the land of his nativity should be free from its enemies. This latter supposition indeed implies, what is inconsistent with the preceding assertion. For it implies, that in part of that time of the infancy spoken of the land should not be free from enemies, and consequently these species of delicate food could not be attainable, as they are in times of peace. The other version, ‘that he may know,’ has no meaning at all; for what sense is there in asserting, that a child shall eat butter and honey that he may know to refuse evil and choose good? Is there any such effect in this food? Surely not. Besides, the child is thus represented to eat those things, which only a state of peace produces, during its whole infancy, inconsistently with Isaiah 7:16, which promises a relief from enemies only before the end of this infancy: implying plainly, that part of it would be passed in distressful times of war and siege, which was the state of things when the prophecy was delivered.

“But all these objections are cut off, and a clear, coherent sense is given to this passage, by giving another sense to the particle l le. which never occurred to me till I saw it in Harmer’s Observat., vol. i., p. 299. See how coherent the words of the prophet run, with how natural a connection one clause follows another, by properly rendering this one particle: ‘Behold this Virgin shall conceive and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel; butter and honey, shall he eat, when he shall know to refuse evil, and choose good. For before this child shall know to refuse evil and choose good, the land shall be desolate, by whose two kings thou art distressed.’ Thus Isaiah 7:16 subjoins a plain reason why the child should eat butter and honey, the food of plentiful times, when he came to a distinguishing age; viz., because before that time the country of the two kings, who now distressed Judea, should be desolated; and so Judea should recover that plenty which attends peace. That this rendering, which gives perspicuity and rational connection to the passage, is according to the use of the Hebrew particle, is certain. Thus rqb twnpl liphnoth boker, ‘at the appearing of morning, or when morning appeared,’ Exodus 14:27; האכל לעת leeth haochel, ‘at mealtime, or when it was time to eat,’ Ruth 2:14. In the same manner, לדעתו ledato, ‘at his knowing, that is, when he knows.’

“Harmer (ibid.) has clearly shown that these articles of food are delicacies in the East, and, as such, denote a state of plenty. See also Joshua 5:6. They therefore naturally express the plenty of the country, as a mark of peace restored to it. Indeed, in Isaiah 7:22 it expresses a plenty arising from the thinness of the people; but that it signifies, Isaiah 7:15, a plenty arising from deliverance from war then present, is evident; because otherwise there is no expression of this deliverance. And that a deliverance was intended to be here expressed is plain, from calling the child which should be born Immanuel, God with us. It is plain, also, because it is before given to the prophet in charge to make a declaration of the deliverance, Isaiah 7:3-7; and it is there made; and this prophecy must undoubtedly be conformable to that in this matter.”—Dr. Jubb.

The circumstance of the child’s eating butter and honey is explained by Jarchi, as denoting a state of plenty: “Butter and honey shall this child eat, because our land shall be full of all good.” Comment in locum. The infant Jupiter, says Callimachus, was tenderly nursed with goat’s milk and honey. Hymn, in Jov. 48. Homer, of the orphan daughters of Pandareus:— Komisse de di~ Afrodith

Turw kai meliti glukerw, kai hdei oinw.

ODYSS. XX., 68.

“Venus in tender delicacy rears

With honey, milk, and wine, their infant years.”

POPE.

Trufhv estin endeixiv; “This is a description of delicate food,” says Eustathius on the place.

Agreeably to the observations communicated by the learned person above mentioned, which perfectly well explain the historical sense of this much disputed passage, not excluding a higher secondary sense, the obvious and literal meaning of the prophecy is this: “that within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years, (compare Isaiah 8:4,) the enemies of Judah should be destroyed.” But the prophecy is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign is so marked, as a sign selected and given by God himself, after Ahaz had rejected the offer of any sign of his own choosing out of the whole compass of nature; the terms of the prophecy are so peculiar, and the name of the child so expressive, containing in them much more than the circumstances of the birth of a common child required, or even admitted; that we may easily suppose that, in minds prepared by the general expectation of a great Deliverer to spring from the house of David, they raised hopes far beyond what the present occasion suggested; especially when it was found, that in the subsequent prophecy, delivered immediately afterward, this child, called Immanuel, is treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who could this be, other than the heir of the throne of David; under which character a great and even a Divine person had been promised? No one of that age answered to this character except Hezekiah; but he was certainly born nine or ten years before the delivery of this prophecy. That this was so understood at that time is collected, I think, with great probability, from a passage of Micah, a prophet contemporary with Isaiah, but who began to prophesy after him; and who, as I have already observed, imitated him, and sometimes used his expressions. Micah, having delivered that remarkable prophecy which determines the place of the birth of Messiah, “the Ruler of God’s people, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting;” that it should be Bethlehem Ephratah; adds immediately, that nevertheless, in the mean time, God would deliver his people into the hands of their enemies: “He will give them up, till she, who is to bear a child, shall bring forth,” Micah 5:3. This obviously and plainly refers to some known prophecy concerning a woman to bring forth a child; and seems much more properly applicable to this passage of Isaiah than to any others of the same prophet, to which some interpreters have applied it. St. Matthew, therefore, in applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ, does it, not merely in the way of accommodating the words of the prophet to a suitable case not in the prophet’s view, but takes it in its strictest, clearest, and most important sense; and applies it according to the original design and principal intention of the prophet.—L.

After all this learned criticism, I think something is still wanting to diffuse the proper light over this important prophecy. On Matthew 1:23 I have given what I judge to be the true meaning and right application of the whole passage, as there quoted by the evangelist, the substance of which it will be necessary to repeat here:—

At the time referred to, the kingdom of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced very low. Pekah, king of Israel, had slain in Judea one hundred and twenty thousand persons in one day; and carried away captives two hundred thousand, including women and children, together with much spoil. To add to their distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with Pekah, had taken Elath, a fortified city of Judah, and carried the inhabitants away captive to Damascus. In this critical conjuncture, need we wonder that Ahaz was afraid that the enemies who were now united against him must prevail, destroy Jerusalem, end the kingdom of Judah, and annihilate the family of David? To meet and remove this fear, apparently well grounded, Isaiah is sent from the Lord to Ahaz, swallowed up now both by sorrow and by unbelief, in order to assure him that the counsels of his enemies should not stand; and that they should be utterly discomfited. To encourage Ahaz, he commands him to ask a sign or miracle, which should be a pledge in hand, that God should, in due time, fulfill the predictions of his servant, as related in the context. On Ahaz humbly refusing to ask any sign, it is immediately added, “Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive and bear a son; and shall call his name Immanuel. Butter and honey shall he eat,” &c. Both the Divine and human nature of our Lord, as well as the miraculous conception, appear to be pointed out in the prophecy quoted here by the evangelist: He shall be called la-wnm[ IMMANU-EL; literally, The STRONG GOD WITH US: similar to those words in the New Testament: The word which was God-was made flesh, and dwelt among us, full of grace and truth; John 1:1, 14. And God was manifested in the flesh, 1 Timothy 3:16. So that we are to understand God with us to imply, God incarnated-God in human nature. This seems farther evident from the words of the prophet, Isaiah 7:15: Butter and honey shall he eat-he shall be truly man-grow up and be nourished in a human natural way; which refers to his being WITH US, i.e., incarnated. To which the prophet adds, That he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good; or rather, According to his knowledge, לדעתו ledato, reprobating the evil, and choosing the good; this refers to him as GOD, and is the same idea given by this prophet, Isaiah 53:11: By (or in) his knowledge, בדעתו bedato, (the knowledge of Christ crucified,) shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their offenses. Now this union of the Divine and human nature is termed a sign or miracle, twa oth, i.e., something which exceeds the power of nature to produce. And this miraculous union was to be brought about in a miraculous way: Behold, a VIRGIN shall conceive: the word is very emphatic, העלמה haalmah, THE virgin; the only one that ever was, or ever shall be, a mother in this way. But the Jews, and some called Christians, who have espoused their desperate cause, assert that “the word hml[ almah does not signify a VIRGIN only; for it is applied Proverbs 30:19 to signify a young married woman.” I answer, that this latter text is no proof of the contrary doctrine: the words בעלמה גבר Ërd derech geber bealmah, the way of a man with a maid, cannot be proved to mean that for which it is produced. Besides, one of Deuteronomy Rossi’s MSS. reads בעלמיו bealmaiv, the way of a strong or stout man (rbg geber) IN HIS YOUTH; and in this reading the Syriac, Septuagint, Vulgate, and Arabic agree; which are followed by the first version in the English language, as it stands in a MS. in my own possession: the weie of a man in his waxing youth: so that this place, the only one that can with any probability of success be produced, were the interpretation contended for correct, which I am by no means disposed to admit, proves nothing. Besides, the consent of so many versions in the opposite meaning deprives it of much of its influence in this question. The word hml[ almah, comes from µl[ alam, to lie hid, be concealed: and we are told, that “virgins were so called, because they were concealed or closely kept up in their father’s houses till the time of their marriage.” This is not correct: see the case of Rebecca, Genesis 24:43, and my note there; See Clarke “Genesis 24:43”; that of Rachel, Genesis 29:6, 9, and the note there also; and see the case of Miriam, the sister of Moses, Exodus 2:8, and also the Chaldee paraphrase on Lamentations 1:4, where the virgins are represented as going out in the dance. And see also the whole history of Ruth. This being concealed or kept at home, on which so much stress is laid, is purely fanciful; for we find that young unmarried women drew water, kept sheep, gleaned publicly in the fields, &c., &c., and the same works they perform among the Turcomans to the present day. This reason, therefore, does not account for the radical meaning of the word; and we must seek it elsewhere. Another well-known and often-used root in the Hebrew tongue will cast light on this subject. This is hlg galah, which signifies to reveal, make manifest, or uncover; and is often applied to matrimonial connections in different parts of the Mosaic law: µl[ alam, therefore, may be considered as implying the concealment of the virgin, as such, till lawful, marriage had taken place. A virgin was not called hml[ almah, because she was concealed by being kept at home in her father’s house, which is not true; but, literally and physically, because as a woman she had not been uncovered-she had not known man. This fully applies to the blessed virgin, see Luke 1:34. “How can this be, seeing I know no man?” And this text throws much light on the subject before us. This also is in perfect agreement with the ancient prophecy, “The seed of the woman shall bruise the head of the serpent,” Genesis 3:15; for the person who was to destroy the work of the devil was to be the progeny of the woman, without any concurrence of the man. And hence the text in Genesis speaks as fully of the virgin state of the person from whom Christ, according to the flesh, should come, as that in the prophet, or this in the evangelist. According to the original promise there was to be a seed, a human being, who should destroy sin: but this seed or human being, must come from the woman ALONE; and no woman ALONE could produce such a human being without being a virgin. Hence, A virgin shall bear a son, is the very spirit and meaning of the original text, independently of the illustration given by the prophet; and the fact recorded by the evangelist is the proof of the whole. But how could that be a sign to Ahaz, which was to take place so many hundreds of years after? I answer, the meaning of the prophet is plain: not only Rezin and Pekah should be unsuccessful against Jerusalem at that time, which was the fact; but Jerusalem, Judea, and the house of David should be both preserved, notwithstanding their depressed state, and the multitude of their adversaries, till the time should come when a VIRGIN should bear a son. This is a most remarkable circumstance-the house of David could never fail, till a virgin should conceive and bear a son-nor did it: but when that incredible and miraculous fact did take place, the kingdom and house of David became extinct! This is an irrefragable confutation of every argument a Jew can offer in vindication of his opposition to the Gospel of Christ. Either the prophecy in Isaiah has been fulfilled, or the kingdom and house of David are yet standing. But the kingdom of David, we know, is destroyed: and where is the man, Jew or Gentile, that can show us a single descendant of David on the face of the earth? The prophecy could not fail: the kingdom and house of David have failed; the virgin, therefore, must have brought forth her son, and this son is Jesus, the Christ. Thus Moses, Isaiah, and Matthew concur; and facts the most unequivocal have confirmed the whole! Behold the wisdom and providence of God! Notwithstanding what has been said above, it may be asked, In what sense could this name, Immanuel, be applied to Jesus Christ, if he be not truly and properly GOD? Could the Spirit of truth ever design that Christians should receive him as an angel or a mere man; and yet, in the very beginning of the Gospel history, apply a character to him which belongs only to the most high God? Surely no. In what sense, then, is Christ GOD WITH US? Jesus is called Immanuel, or God with us, in his incarnation; God united to our nature; God with man, God in man; God with us, by his continual protection; God with us, by the influences of his Holy Spirit, in the holy sacrament, in the preaching of his word, in private prayer. And God with us, through every action of our life, that we begin, continue, and end in his name. He is God with us, to comfort, enlighten, protect, and defend us, in every time of temptation and trial, in the hour of death, in the day of judgment; and God with us and in us, and we with and in him, to all eternity.

Verse 15. Butter and honey shall he eat — The common food of children in that country, where these articles were in great abundance, and of the best sort. The principal meaning of the verse seems to be, that this child, called Immanuel, should be brought up in the usual manner, “the same republic still continuing, and the cultivated fields, unoccupied by the enemy, abundantly supplying all necessary food; and that thus he should grow up to maturity.” The words, however, also signify, that though he should be miraculously conceived, and should be possessed of a nature truly divine, yet he should be also human, subject to all the infirmities of our nature, standing in need of food for his support as other children do, and by the help thereof growing up from childhood to manhood. That he may know — Or rather, till he know, as wt[dl may be properly rendered; to refuse the evil and choose the good — That is, till his faculties be fully unfolded, or, as Bishop Lowth renders it, when he knows, &c.; when they are unfolded, and he is arrived at mature age. Both in childhood and in manhood, he shall be sustained by the usual diet of the country, which, being neither invaded nor distressed by any foreign enemy, shall yield food sufficient for all its inhabitants.

Ver. 15. Butter and honey shall he eat. The food of children in Judea was rich milk, sweetened with honey, as in most other nations. This designates the divine wisdom and knowledge which were in Christ, for he had meat to eat which the world knew nothing of.

15. Butter and honey shall he eat — The “butter” of the Old Testament was simply curdled milk. As Palestine was an easy region for cattle breeding, and wild bees were abundant and productive, so it was called “a land flowing with milk and honey.” These were the most easily procured foods for the common people, and the usual food for children. Hence it is but the ordinary children’s diet that is here specified for the child. Were it not that the amiable commentator, Albert Barnes, is so unwontedly severe upon the interpretation, we should not hesitate to say that the true meaning is, that the divine child would, though the divine Incarnate, eat the ordinary human food; so the resurrect Jesus ate before his disciples of their food to identify himself. How knew Isaiah’s contemporaries that the born Immanuel would eat, not of celestial food, but the plain diet of other children? And it is interesting to be told by Luke that “he increased in wisdom” just like any other child. Luke 2:52. That he may know — This word “that,” in the sense of in order that, greatly distresses some commentators. What, did he eat butter and honey in order to know, etc.? And so they substitute until for “that.” Now, we take it that the plain meaning is, that he ate the ordinary child’s food in order that he might as a child grow in mind and body into years of discretion. Brain as well as muscle grows on food; and even the Incarnate submitted to the process.

V. 16. Yea-Not only this land shall be preserved until the virgin’s son shall be born, but thine enemies land shall be sorely scourged, and these two kings destroyed within a very little time. This child-Shear-Jashub, whom in all probability the prophet pointed at, and who was brought hither by God’s special command, ver. 3. for this very use. The land-The lands of Syria and Israel. Forsaken-So far shall Pekah and Rezin be from conquering thy land, that they shall lose their own lands, and their lives too; which they did within two years after this time, being both slain by the king of Assyria.

Verse 16. For before the child, &c. — “The learned Vitringa,” says Dr. Dodd, “seems to have proved beyond any doubt, that the child spoken of in this verse can be no other than he who is spoken of in the preceding verses. The connecting particle for, and the repetition of the words, refusing the evil and choosing the good, evidently demonstrate,” he thinks, “that the IMMANUEL is here meant, and that, in order to enter into the immediate design of the prophet, we are to consider that, rapt, as it were, into future times, he proposes the Immanuel, as a sign of salvation to the people of God, as if present, Behold a virgin conceives; as if he understood him to be at this time conceived in the womb of the virgin, and shortly to be born: and he says, that more time shall not elapse from his birth to his capability of discerning between good and evil, than from hence to the desertion of the land of the two kings,” or the time specified, Isaiah 8:4. Archbishop Usher, however, Poole, Henry, Dr. Kennicott, and some other celebrated writers, conceive that we have a two-fold prophecy in this passage, the former part, contained in verses 14, 15, referring to the Messiah, and the latter, contained in this verse, to Shear-jashub, the son of Isaiah. “That the 16th verse,” says Dr. Kennicott, “contains a distinct prophecy, appears from hence: 1st, The words preceding have been proved to be confined to the Messiah, whose birth was then distant above seven hundred years; whereas the words here are confined to some child who was not to arrive at years of discretion before the kings, then advancing against Jerusalem, should be themselves cut off. 2d, Some end was undoubtedly to be answered by the presence of Isaiah’s son, whom God commanded him to take with him when he went to visit Ahaz; and yet no use at all appears to have been made of this son, unless he be referred to in this sentence; and, 3d, These prophecies are manifestly distinguished by being addressed to different persons. The first was addressed to the house of David, for the consolation of the pious in general; as it assured them, not only of the preservation of that house, but of God’s fidelity to his great promise: whereas the second promise is addressed to the king in particular, as it foretold the speedy destruction of the two kings, his enemies.” Dr. Doddridge, who also thinks that this verse refers to Shear-jashub, judging with Dr. Kennicott, that Isaiah “was ordered to take him in his hand for no other imaginable reason, but that something remarkable was to be said of him,” defines the general sense of these verses from the 13th to be this: “You have affronted God by refusing a sign now; yet his transcendent mercy will make your present forfeited deliverance, (by the death of these confederate kings, which shall happen before, r[nh, this child in my hand is grown up to the exercise of reason,) a sign of a much nobler deliverance by the Messiah; who shall be born of an immaculate virgin, and shall condescend to pass through the tender scenes of infancy, as other children do.” In the latter part of the verse, the land that thou abhorrest, means the countries of Syria and Israel, which Ahaz abhorred for their cruel designs and practices against him. Shall be forsaken of both her kings — So far shall Rezin and Pekah be from conquering thy land, that they shall lose their own lands, and their lives too: which they did within two years after this time, being both slain by the king of Assyria, 2 Kings 15:29, 30; and 16:9.

Ver. 16. Before the child shall know. Meaning now Shear-jashub, whom he then held by the hand; even before he shall know to refuse evil and choose good, the land shall be desolate, by whose two kings thou art distressed. Ahaz had hired Tiglath-Pileser, the Lord’s sharp razor, who invaded Damascus and slew Rezin, 2 Kings 16:9; and previous to that time Hoshea had slain Pekah. 2 Kings 15:30. By these means Ahaz obtained some repose, but he utterly impoverished his country, and taught the Assyrians the way to Egypt, and all western Asia.

“In Dr. Blair’s tables of chronology we read, that the last deportation of the ten tribes was by Esarhaddon, who carried away the remains of the ten tribes which had been left by Tiglath-Pileser, and who planted the country with new inhabitants. Ezra 4:2. This happened in the sixty fifth year from the second year of Ahaz, as is probable for the following reasons. In the Hebrew book, Seder ôlam, and the talmudists in David Kimchi, on Ezekiel 4., say that Manasseh was carried to Babylon by the captains of the king of Assyria in the twenty second year of his reign; that is, before Christ six hundred and seventy six years.” 2 Chronicles 33:11. Dr. Jubb.

16. Before the child — The Incarnate ideally present. In briefer time than his growth requires. Land that thou abhorrest — The combined territory of both Israel and Syria. Both are spoken of as one “land” because they were one against Judah. Both her kings — Rezin, king of Syria, was slain by the king of Assyria about one year after the date of this prophecy. Pekah, king of Israel, was slain by Hoshea, who usurped the kingdom perhaps two years after this utterance. The immediate fulfilment of these predictions was cheering voucher for the fulfilment of Isaiah’s prediction of the future Incarnate. In the thou of this verse, Isaiah has already slightly recommenced address to Ahaz on this message of mercy; he will now pour forth upon a message of woe — woe to come from the very power on which he was relying, the king of Assyria.

V. 17. Shall bring-But altho’ God will deliver you at this time, yet he will requite all your wickedness. Thee-For part of this Assyrian storm fell in Ahaz’s reign. And-Upon thy sons and successors, the kings of Judah. Days-Calamities. Departed-When ten tribes revolted from thy father’s house. The king-Who may well be called their plague or calamity, as he is called the rod of God’s anger, Isaiah 10:5.

Verse 17. The Lord shall bring— “But JEHOVAH will bring”] Houbigant reads aybw vaiyabi, from the Septuagint, alla epaxei o Qeov, to mark the transition to a new subject.

Even the king of Assyria.] Houbigant supposes these words to have been a marginal gloss, brought into the text by mistake; and so likewise Archbishop Secker. Besides their having no force or effect here, they do not join well in construction with the words preceding, as may be seen by the strange manner in which the ancient interpreters have taken them; and they very inelegantly forestall the mention of the king of Assyria, which comes in with great propriety in the 20th verse. I have therefore taken the liberty of omitting them in the translation.

Verse 17. The Lord shall bring upon thee — But although God will deliver you at this time, for his own name’s sake, yet he will remember and requite your wickedness, and hath a dreadful judgment in store for you. And upon thy people, and thy father’s house — Upon thy subjects, and upon thy sons and successors, the kings of Judah: the accomplishment of which threatening is recorded in their history. Part of the Assyrian storm fell in Ahaz’s reign, 2 Chronicles 28:20; and he began to reap the bitter fruit of his confiding in the king of Assyria, rather than in the Lord of hosts. Days that have not come — Namely, evil days, or calamities; from the day that Ephraim departed, &c. — When the ten tribes revolted from thy father’s house, and set up another opposite kingdom. The king of Assyria might well be called their plague or calamity, as he is called the rod of God’s anger, Isaiah 10:5.

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!

17. The Lord shall bring upon thee — That is, upon the population of Judah. And upon thy father’s house — The royal family. Days… not come — Afflictions, the like of which have never yet come. From the day… Ephraim — Since the ten tribes of Israel, under Jeroboam, revolted. See 1 Kings 12:16. After Tiglath-pileser, the king of Assyria — probably within two years from the time his aid was sought by Ahaz — had overthrown Rezin and Pekah in their second attempt upon Judah and Jerusalem, he turned to subdue some small kingdoms in the north, but came again to harass Egypt on the south, and made Judah subject to a worse vassalage than before, causing the whole country to become the battle-field of Assyria and Egypt. For some time agriculture was ruined. A pasturage of shrubs, thorns, and briers covered nearly the whole territory of Judah. Then, as against Assyria, Judah, in process of time, seeks relief from Egypt, which in turn also becomes a fatal ally. During many years afterward deterioration went on, until all things became true which Isaiah had predicted. Finally, Israel first, then Judah, was desolated of people, nationality, and government altogether. The Assyrian annals give us two kings by the name of Tiglath-pileser. The one mentioned in transactions here was the second. He invaded Israel twice; the second invasion is the one here given. See Rawlinson’s Herodotus, vol. i, p. 377.

V. 18. The fly-The flies. So he calls these enemies, to imply their great numbers. In-In their extremity, where they go out into the sea. Rivers-Of the river Nile, which may be called rivers, either for its greatness, or because towards the end of it, it is divided into seven streams. When the Chaldeans had in good measure subdued the Egyptians, it is probable great numbers of the Egyptian soldiers listed themselves in the Chaldean army, and with them invaded the land of Judah. The bee-The Assyrian army, compared to bees, as for their numerous forces and orderly march, so for their fierce attempts and mischievous effects. Assyria-In the empire of Assyria, or Babylon; for these two were united into one empire, and therefore in scripture are promiscuously called sometimes by one title, and sometimes by the other.

Verse 18. Hiss for the fly— “Hist the fly”] See Clarke’s note on “Isaiah 5:26”.

Egypt, and-Assyria.] Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, Pharaoh-necho, and Nebuchadnezzar, who one after another desolated Judea.

Verses 18, 19. In that day — Known to God, and appointed by him for the execution of these judgments; the Lord shall hiss for the fly — The flies, rather. Thus he calls these enemies, to signify either their great number, or their speedy march: see on Isaiah 5:26. As the word hiss carries with it a low idea, and does not properly express the meaning of the original word qrv, sherek, which properly signifies, sibilando advocare, to call by whistling, it seems desirable that it should not have been used here and Isaiah 5:26. Bishop Lowth renders it, Jehovah shall hist the fly, shall call them softly, bring them by a slight intimation of his will. In the uttermost part of the rivers, &c. — In their extremity, where they go out into the sea. The river Nile is undoubtedly intended, which may be called rivers, either for its greatness, or because toward the end of it it is divided into seven streams. When the Chaldeans had, in good measure, subdued the Egyptians, it is probable great numbers of the Egyptian soldiers listed themselves in the Chaldean army, and with them invaded the land of Judah. And for the bee, &c. — The Assyrian army, compared to bees, as for their numerous forces and orderly march, so for their fierce attempts and mischievous effects. In the land of Assyria — In the empire of Assyria or Babylon; for these two were united into one empire, and therefore in Scripture are promiscuously called sometimes by one title, and sometimes by the other. They shall come — The flies, and especially the bees. And shall rest all of them — They shall have an easy victory; few or none of them shall be slain in the attempt. In the desolate valleys — Such as they found very fruitful, but made desolate. And in the holes of the rocks — To which possibly the Israelites fled for refuge. Upon all bushes — Which he mentions, because flies and bees use frequently to rest there; and to intimate, that no place should escape their fury.

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!

18. It is not necessary to suppose that the piece of prophecy commencing here was delivered at the same time with the preceding, but it is on the same subject and in a similar strain. It is the more complete unfolding of the previously predicted calamities. That is, herein is explained what is said in verse 15. God himself is represented as entering into the action. In that day — In the days just threatened. Shall hiss — Isaiah 5:26. The word signifies a kind of whistling. For (or to) the fly — See note on Isaiah 5:26. Uttermost part of the rivers — The Nile branches and canals in the Delta. Pharaoh Necho, king of Egypt, it is supposed, mustered armies, mentioned here tropically by flies. The fly is an abundant nuisance in Egypt. Any traveller in Egypt, at this time, even in the winter season, may observe the fly carrying the ophthalmic virus from the eyes of one to another, among the children especially of the fellahs; and scarcely half the population are unaffected by the ophthalmic scourge. The bee… of Assyria — The bee, because of its number in Assyria, or because of the keenness of its sting, is here taken as the symbol of the Assyrian armies. The scope of time covered by the fulfilment of verse 18 is from Isaiah’s day to the end of Israel and Judah as nations: and the armies were headed by Pharaoh Necho of Egypt, and by Shalmanezer, Esarhaddon, and Nebuchadnezzar of Assyria and Babylon.

V. 19. Valleys-Such as they found fruitful, but made desolate. Rocks-To which possibly the Israelites fled for refuge. Bushes-Which he mentions because flies and bees use frequently to rest there; and to intimate, that no place should escape their fury.

Verse 19. Holes of the rocks— “Caverns”] So the Septuagint, Syriac, and Vulgate, whence Houbigant supposes the true reading to be הנחללים hannachalolim. One of my oldest MSS. reads הנחלולים hannochalolim.

Verses 18, 19. In that day — Known to God, and appointed by him for the execution of these judgments; the Lord shall hiss for the fly — The flies, rather. Thus he calls these enemies, to signify either their great number, or their speedy march: see on Isaiah 5:26. As the word hiss carries with it a low idea, and does not properly express the meaning of the original word qrv, sherek, which properly signifies, sibilando advocare, to call by whistling, it seems desirable that it should not have been used here and Isaiah 5:26. Bishop Lowth renders it, Jehovah shall hist the fly, shall call them softly, bring them by a slight intimation of his will. In the uttermost part of the rivers, &c. — In their extremity, where they go out into the sea. The river Nile is undoubtedly intended, which may be called rivers, either for its greatness, or because toward the end of it it is divided into seven streams. When the Chaldeans had, in good measure, subdued the Egyptians, it is probable great numbers of the Egyptian soldiers listed themselves in the Chaldean army, and with them invaded the land of Judah. And for the bee, &c. — The Assyrian army, compared to bees, as for their numerous forces and orderly march, so for their fierce attempts and mischievous effects. In the land of Assyria — In the empire of Assyria or Babylon; for these two were united into one empire, and therefore in Scripture are promiscuously called sometimes by one title, and sometimes by the other. They shall come — The flies, and especially the bees. And shall rest all of them — They shall have an easy victory; few or none of them shall be slain in the attempt. In the desolate valleys — Such as they found very fruitful, but made desolate. And in the holes of the rocks — To which possibly the Israelites fled for refuge. Upon all bushes — Which he mentions, because flies and bees use frequently to rest there; and to intimate, that no place should escape their fury.

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!

19. They shall come — The armies “shall come.” And shall rest all of them — They will settle down like bees in one part and like flies in another, in precipitous valleys, clefts of rocks, and in all thorn-hedges and pastures. A frightful figure of the different invasions of the armies of the two great countries, Assyria and Egypt. The great highway of these invaders of each other lay on the plain between the Mediterranean sea and the eastern foothills; but all the hill region also is here represented as covered, first by one army then by the other, but chiefly by the Assyrian and finally by the Babylonian armies.

V. 20. Shave-Utterly spoil, as shaving takes away the hair. Hired-By Ahaz, who did hire them, 2 Kings 16:7,8. And so the prophet notes the just judgment of God, in scourging them with a rod of their own making. By-By the successive kings of the Assyrian empire, Sennacherib, Esarhaddon, and especially by Nebuchadnezzar. The head-By these metaphorical expressions he signifies the total destruction of their state, from head to foot, from the highest to the lowest.

Verse 20. The river] That is, the Euphrates: rhnh hanahar. So read the Septuagint and two MSS.

Shall the Lord shave with a razor that is hired— “JEHOVAH shall shave by the hired razor”] To shave with the hired razor the head, the feet, and the beard, is an expression highly parabolical, to denote the utter devastation of the country from one end to the other; and the plundering of the people, from the highest to the lowest, by the Assyrians, whom God employed as his instrument to punish the Jews. Ahaz himself, in the first place, hired the king of Assyria to come to help him against the Syrians, by a present made to him of all the treasures of the temple, as well as his own. And God himself considered the great nations, whom he thus employed as his mercenaries; and paid them their wages. Thus he paid Nebuchadnezzar for his services against Tyre, by the conquest of Egypt, Ezekiel 29:18-20. The hairs of the head are those of the highest order in the state; those of the feet, or the lower parts, are the common people; the beard is the king, the high priest, the very supreme in dignity and majesty. The Eastern people have always held the beard in the highest veneration, and have been extremely jealous of its honour. To pluck a man’s beard is an instance of the greatest indignity that can be offered. See Isaiah 50:6. The king of the Ammonites, to show the utmost contempt of David, “cut off half the beards of his servants, and the men were greatly ashamed; and David bade them tarry at Jericho till their beards were grown,” 2 Samuel 10:4, 6. Niebuhr, Arabie, p. 275, gives a modern instance of the very same kind of insult. “The Turks,” says Thevenot, “greatly esteem a man who has a fine beard; it is a very great affront to take a man by his beard, unless it be to kiss it; they swear by the beard.” Voyages, i., p. 57. D’Arvieux gives a remarkable instance of an Arab, who, having received a wound in his jaw, chose to hazard his life, rather than suffer his surgeon to take off his beard. Memoires, tom. iii., p. 214. See also Niebuhr, Arabie, p. 61.

The remaining verses of this chapter, Isaiah 7:21-25, contain an elegant and very expressive description of a country depopulated, and left to run wild, from its adjuncts and circumstances: the vineyards and cornfields, before well cultivated, now overrun with briers and thorns; much grass, so that the few cattle that are left, a young cow and two sheep, have their full range, and abundant pasture, so as to yield milk in plenty to the scanty family of the owner; the thinly scattered people living, not on corn, wine, and oil, the produce of cultivation; but on milk and honey, the gifts of nature; and the whole land given up to the wild beasts, so that the miserable inhabitants are forced to go out armed with bows and arrows, either to defend themselves against the wild beasts, or to supply themselves with necessary food by hunting.

A VERY judicious friend has sent me the following observations on the preceding prophecy, which I think worthy of being laid before the reader; though they are in some respects different from my own view of the subject.

“To establish the primary and literal meaning of a passage of Scripture is evidently laying the true foundation for any subsequent views or improvements from it.

“The kingdom of Judah, under the government of Ahaz, was reduced very low. Pekah, king of Israel, had slain in Judea one hundred and twenty thousand in one day; and carried away captive two hundred thousand, including women and children, with much spoil. To add to this distress, Rezin, king of Syria, being confederate with Pekah, had taken Elath, a fortified city of Judah, and carried the inhabitants to Damascus. I think it may also be gathered from the sixth verse of Isaiah 8:6, that the kings of Syria and Israel had a considerable party in the land of Judea, who, regardless of the Divine appointment and promises, were disposed to favour the elevation of Tabeal, a stranger, to the throne of David. “In this critical conjuncture of affairs, Isaiah was sent with a message of mercy, and a promise of deliverance, to Ahaz. He was commanded to take with him Shearjashub, his son whose name contained a promise respecting the captives lately made by Pekah, whose return from Samaria, effected by the expostulation of the prophet Oded and the concurrence of the princes of Ephraim, was now promised as a pledge of the Divine interposition offered to Ahaz in favour of the house of David. And as a farther token of this preservation, notwithstanding the incredulity of Ahaz, Isaiah was directed to predict the birth of another son which should be born to him within the space of a year, and to be named Immanuel, signifying thereby the protection of God to the land of Judah and family of David at this present conjuncture, with reference to the promise of the Messiah who was to spring from that family, and be born in that land. Compare Isaiah 8:8. Hence Isaiah testifies, Isaiah 8:18: ‘Behold, I and the children whom the Lord hath given me are for signs and for types in Israel.’ Compare Zechariah 3:8: ‘Thy companions are men of sign and type:’ see Dr. Lowth on this verse. The message of Divine displeasure against Israel is in like manner expressed by the names the prophet Hosea was directed to give his children; see Hos. i. and ii. Hosea 1:4, 6, 9; “Concerning this child, who was to be named Immanuel, the prophet was commissioned to declare, that notwithstanding the present scarcity prevailing in the land from its being harassed by war, yet within the space of time wherein this child should be of age to discern good and evil, both these hostile kings, viz., of Israel and Syria, should be cut off; and the country enjoy such plenty, that butter and honey, food accounted of peculiar delicacy, should be a common repast. See Harmer’s Observations, p. 299.

“To this it may be objected that Isaiah’s son was not named Immanuel, but Maher-shalal-hash-baz; the signification of which bore a threatening aspect, instead of a consolatory one. To this I think a satisfactory answer may be given. Ahaz, by his unbelief and disregard of the message of mercy sent to him from God, (for instead of depending upon it he sent and made a treaty with the king of Assyria,) drew upon himself the Divine displeasure, which was expressed by the change of the child’s name, and the declaration that though Damascus and Samaria should, according to the former prediction, fall before the king of Assyria, yet that this very power, i.e., Assyria, in whom Ahaz trusted for deliverance, (see 2 Kings 16:7, &c.,) should afterwards come against Judah, and ‘fill the breadth of the land,’ which was accomplished in the following reign, when Jerusalem was so endangered as to be delivered only by miracle. The sixth and seventh verses of Isaiah 8:6, 7 indicate, I think, as I before observed, that the kings of Syria and Israel had many adherents in Judah, who are said to refuse the peaceful waters of Shiloah or Siloam, him that is to be sent, who ought to have been their confidence, typified by the fountain at the foot of Mount Zion, whose stream watered the city of Jerusalem; and therefore, since the splendour of victory, rather than the blessings of peace, was the object of their admiration, compared to a swelling river which overflowed its banks, God threatens to chastise them by the victorious armies of Ashur. The prophet at the same time addresses words of consolation to such of the people who yet feared and trusted in Jehovah, whom he instructs and comforts with the assurance (Isaiah 8:10) that they shall prove the fulfilment of the promise contained in the name Immanuel. “But it may still be objected, that according to this interpretation of the fourteenth verse of Isaiah 7:14 nothing miraculous occurs, which is readily admitted; but the objection rests upon the supposition that something miraculous was intended; whereas the word twa oth, ‘sign,’ does by no means generally imply a miracle, but most commonly an emblematic representation, (see Ezekiel 4:3-12; 11:1-25; 20:20; Zechariah 6:14,) either by actions or names, of some future event either promised or threatened. Exodus 3:12; 1 Samuel 2:34; 2 Kings 19:29; Jeremiah 44:29, 30, are all examples of a future event given as a sign or token of something else which is also future. The birth of Isaiah’s son was indeed typical of him whose name he was, at first, appointed to bear, viz., Immanuel, even as Oshea the son of Nun had his name changed to Jehoshua, the same with Jesus, of whom he was an eminent type. Hence the prophet, in the ninth chapter, breaks forth into a strain of exultation: ‘To us a child is born;’ after which follow denunciations against Rezin and the kingdom of Israel, which are succeeded by declarations, that when Assyria had completed the appointed chastisement upon Judah and Jerusalem, that empire should be destroyed. The whole of the tenth chapter is a very remarkable prophecy, and was probably delivered about the time of Sennacherib’s invasion. “But still it will be urged, that St. Matthew, when relating the miraculous conception of our Lord, says, ‘Now all this was done that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet,’ &c. To this it may readily be answered, that what was spoken by the prophet was indeed now fulfilled in a higher, more important, and also in a more literal sense, than the primary fulfilment could afford, which derived all its value from its connection with this event, to which it ultimately referred. “In like manner the prophecy of Isaiah, contained in the second chapter, received a complete fulfilment in our Saviour’s honouring Capernaum with his residence, and preaching throughout Galilee; though there appears reason to interpret the passage as having a primary respect to the reformation wrought by Hezekiah and which, at the eve of the dissolution of the kingdom of Israel by the captivity of the ten tribes, extended to the tribes of Asher and Zebulun, and many of the inhabitants of Ephraim and Manasseh, who were hereby stirred up to destroy idolatry in their country. See 2 Chronicles 31:1. And without doubt the great deliverance wrought afterwards for Judah by the miraculous destruction of Sennacherib’s army, and the recovery of Hezekiah in so critical a conjuncture from a sickness which had been declared to be unto death, contributed not a little to revive the fear of God in that part of Israel which, through their defection from the house of David, had grievously departed from the temple and worship of the true God; and as Galilee lay contiguous to countries inhabited by Gentiles, they had probably sunk deeper into idolatry than the southern part of Israel.

“In several passages of St. Matthew’s Gospel, our translation conveys the idea of things being done in order to fulfil certain prophecies; but I apprehend that if the words ina kai opwv were rendered as simply denoting the event, so that and thus was fulfilled, the sense would be much clearer. For it is obvious that our Lord did not speak in parables or ride into Jerusalem previously to his last passover, simply for the purpose of fulfilling the predictions recorded, but also from other motives; and in Matthew 2:15, 19-23 the evangelist only remarks that the circumstance of our Lord’s return from Egypt corresponded with the prophet Hosea’s relation of that part of the history of the Israelites. So in the twenty-third verse Joseph dwelt at Nazareth because he was directed so to do by God himself; and the sacred historian, having respect to the effect afterwards produced, (see John 7:41, 42, 52,) remarks that this abode in Nazareth was a means of fulfilling those predictions of the prophets which indicate the contempt and neglect with which by many the Messiah should be treated. Galilee was considered by the inhabitants of Judea as a degraded place, chiefly from its vicinity to the Gentiles; and Nazareth seems to have been proverbially contemptible; and from the account given of the spirit and conduct of the inhabitants by the evangelists, not without reason.”—E. M. B.

To my correspondent, as well as to many learned men, there appears some difficulty in the text; but I really think this is quite done away by that mode of interpretation which I have already adopted; and as far as the miraculous conception is concerned, the whole is set in the clearest and strongest light, and the objections and cavils of the Jeers entirely destroyed. ISAIAH

Verse 20. The Lord shall shave — Shall utterly spoil, as shaving takes away the hair; with a razor that is hired — Hired by Ahaz; for he purchased the aid of the Assyrians with large sums of silver and gold, 2 Kings 16:7, 8. And so the prophet signifies the just judgment of God, in scourging them with a rod of their own making. By them beyond the river — Euphrates, called the river, by way of eminence, beyond which Assyria lay. By the king of Assyria — By the successive kings of the Assyrian empire, Sennacherib, Esar-haddon, and especially by Nebuchadnezzar, who, having subdued the Assyrian monarchy, from thenceforth was king of Assyria as well as of Chaldea. The head and the hair of the feet, &c. — This highly parabolical mode of expression is used to denote “the utter devastation of the country from one end to the other, and the plundering of the people from the highest to the lowest. The hairs of the head are those of the highest order in the state; those of the feet, or lower parts, are the common people: the beard is the king, the high-priest, the very supreme in dignity and majesty: for the eastern people have always held the beard in the highest veneration, and have been extremely jealous of its honour.”

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!

20. Razor — The Assyrians are intended; the hired “razor” of Ahaz. Not so much the products of Palestine are said to be touched, for there locusts would be apt to be the figure employed. The “razor” cuts down princes, and clips the beard, or exacts a heavy, disgraceful tribute. Beyond the river — The Euphrates. More is said in Scripture of indignities from those “beyond the river” than from those along the Nile. Orientals feel disgraced to the last degree when the beard is touched, pulled, or cut.

V. 21. Sheep-They who formerly used to keep great herds of cattle, and many flocks of sheep, shall esteem it a happiness if they can keep but one cow and two sheep.

Verses 21-25. These verses “contain an elegant and very expressive description of a country depopulated, and left to run wild, from its adjuncts and circumstances; the vineyards and corn-fields, before well cultivated, now overrun with briers and thorns; much grass, so that the few cattle that are left, a young cow and two sheep, have their full range, and abundant pasture; so as to yield milk in plenty to the scanty family of the owner: the thinly-scattered people living not on corn, wine, and oil, the produce of cultivation, but on milk and honey, the gifts of nature; and the whole land given up to the wild beasts; so that the miserable inhabitants are forced to go out armed with bows and arrows, either to defend themselves against the wild beasts, or to supply themselves with necessary food by hunting.” — Bishop Lowth.

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!

21, 22. From such spoliations, as well as removals of the population, agriculture ceases, and the land goes to rough pasturage. When cultivation in that land is neglected, the tendency is to briers and thorns and thistles. Tristram (Nat. Hist. Bible, p. 423) says, “The combined heat and dryness of the climate seem to develop a tendency to form thorns even in groups where we should least expect them.” Shall nourish a young cow and two sheep — The idea is, amid great straits from invaders, a man shall do well if he shall be able to save alive this amount of stock. So the word “nourish” indicates that pasturage is abundant, and this shall secure milk, curds, etc., enough. One may preserve himself well if he may but save his stock. If these are taken from him, his peril is certain, because of the fewness of the people, and the neglect of tillage of the soil.

V. 22. Abundance-Because they shall have large pastures, by reason of the great scarcity of cattle. Butter-Which the poorer sort had formerly used to sell, to procure them cheaper food for themselves: but now the land should be so destitute of people, that there were none to whom they could sell them.

Verses 21-25. These verses “contain an elegant and very expressive description of a country depopulated, and left to run wild, from its adjuncts and circumstances; the vineyards and corn-fields, before well cultivated, now overrun with briers and thorns; much grass, so that the few cattle that are left, a young cow and two sheep, have their full range, and abundant pasture; so as to yield milk in plenty to the scanty family of the owner: the thinly-scattered people living not on corn, wine, and oil, the produce of cultivation, but on milk and honey, the gifts of nature; and the whole land given up to the wild beasts; so that the miserable inhabitants are forced to go out armed with bows and arrows, either to defend themselves against the wild beasts, or to supply themselves with necessary food by hunting.” — Bishop Lowth.

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!

21, 22. From such spoliations, as well as removals of the population, agriculture ceases, and the land goes to rough pasturage. When cultivation in that land is neglected, the tendency is to briers and thorns and thistles. Tristram (Nat. Hist. Bible, p. 423) says, “The combined heat and dryness of the climate seem to develop a tendency to form thorns even in groups where we should least expect them.” Shall nourish a young cow and two sheep — The idea is, amid great straits from invaders, a man shall do well if he shall be able to save alive this amount of stock. So the word “nourish” indicates that pasturage is abundant, and this shall secure milk, curds, etc., enough. One may preserve himself well if he may but save his stock. If these are taken from him, his peril is certain, because of the fewness of the people, and the neglect of tillage of the soil.

V. 23. Of silver-Each of the thousand vineyards might have been sold or let for a thousand shekels, which was the yearly rent of some excellent vineyards.

Verses 21-25. These verses “contain an elegant and very expressive description of a country depopulated, and left to run wild, from its adjuncts and circumstances; the vineyards and corn-fields, before well cultivated, now overrun with briers and thorns; much grass, so that the few cattle that are left, a young cow and two sheep, have their full range, and abundant pasture; so as to yield milk in plenty to the scanty family of the owner: the thinly-scattered people living not on corn, wine, and oil, the produce of cultivation, but on milk and honey, the gifts of nature; and the whole land given up to the wild beasts; so that the miserable inhabitants are forced to go out armed with bows and arrows, either to defend themselves against the wild beasts, or to supply themselves with necessary food by hunting.” — Bishop Lowth.

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!

23. Where there were, etc. — Where there were abundant and flourishing vineyards, and one vineyard had a thousand vines, worth each a silverling, or silver shekel, (about fifty-five or sixty cents.) Vineyards were estimated by the number of the vines and the quality of wine they produced. All these vineyards shall be overrun with briers, etc. — a wild waste for the fierce animals. And because of this fact hunters shall flock here with their weapons; or, perhaps the better meaning is, that men — the few men that are left — cannot go out into the fields in safety without their bows and arrows. Verse 25 adds the hilltops, hitherto fully cultivated with the hoe, (inaccessible to the plough,) as also to be neglected and going to briers and thorns in the coming time of depopulation, and only cattle shall venture upon them in search of pasturage; and lesser cattle, that is, sheep and goats, shall join them.

The threat to Ahaz is ideally fulfilled. The desolation, when it comes, shall be wrought in a short time; in just as short a time as the striking down of Rezin and Pekah is to be done — a time measured by the morally unconscious years of the typical child-life in verses 15 and 16; a picture, too, in anticipation of the poverty-struck condition as to means of subsistence, in that coming awful final time of Jewish nationality, A.D. 70.

V. 24. With arrows-Either to hunt, or to defend themselves from wild beasts, which commonly abide in desolate grounds.

Verses 21-25. These verses “contain an elegant and very expressive description of a country depopulated, and left to run wild, from its adjuncts and circumstances; the vineyards and corn-fields, before well cultivated, now overrun with briers and thorns; much grass, so that the few cattle that are left, a young cow and two sheep, have their full range, and abundant pasture; so as to yield milk in plenty to the scanty family of the owner: the thinly-scattered people living not on corn, wine, and oil, the produce of cultivation, but on milk and honey, the gifts of nature; and the whole land given up to the wild beasts; so that the miserable inhabitants are forced to go out armed with bows and arrows, either to defend themselves against the wild beasts, or to supply themselves with necessary food by hunting.” — Bishop Lowth.

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!

V. 25. Digged-That used to be digged and dressed for the planting of vines, or other choice fruit-trees. The fear-That they might be freed from briars and thorns. Cattle-All sorts of cattle may enter, and feed there, the fences being broken down, and the owners slain, or carried into captivity.

Verses 21-25. These verses “contain an elegant and very expressive description of a country depopulated, and left to run wild, from its adjuncts and circumstances; the vineyards and corn-fields, before well cultivated, now overrun with briers and thorns; much grass, so that the few cattle that are left, a young cow and two sheep, have their full range, and abundant pasture; so as to yield milk in plenty to the scanty family of the owner: the thinly-scattered people living not on corn, wine, and oil, the produce of cultivation, but on milk and honey, the gifts of nature; and the whole land given up to the wild beasts; so that the miserable inhabitants are forced to go out armed with bows and arrows, either to defend themselves against the wild beasts, or to supply themselves with necessary food by hunting.” — Bishop Lowth.

Ver. 17-25. The Lord shall bring upon thee— the king of Assyria. The Messiah’s birth being foretold, and the glory of the church secured in him, the casting away of Israel is next denounced, and in figures which paralyse the heart. As a prelude to the tragedy, the Lord would hiss for the fly of Egypt, Pharaoh Necho, who should dispose of David’s throne at pleasure. Next, the bee beyond the Euphrates should sting them. The king of Assyria, the hired razor, should shave the venerable and silver locks of Judah, figures of most humiliating and piercing grief. Or as Habakkuk understood our prophet, the invaders should devour the figtree, and consume the vine; and cut off all the flocks from the fields, and the herds from the stalls. The scattered families that should be left, would have the country to themselves; their one cow, and two sheep, should yield a plentiful supply, because of the paucity of men. Oh Zion, wherewith shalt thou be comforted!