The Holy King, the Cleansed Prophet, and the Hardening Commission

Isa 6:6-7 This confession was followed by the forgiveness of his sins, of which he received an attestation through a heavenly sacrament, and which was conveyed to him through the medium of a seraphic absolution. “And one of the seraphim flew to me with a red-hot coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth with it, and said, Behold, this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away; and so thy sin is expiated.

” One of the beings hovering round the Lord (there were, therefore, a large and indefinite number) flew to the altar of incense - the heavenly original of the altar of incense in the earthly temple, which was reckoned as belonging to the Most Holy Place - and took from this altar a ritzpâh , i. e. , either a red-hot stone (Vulg. Calculum , Ar. radfe or radafe ), or, according to the prevailing tradition, a red-hot coal (vid.

, râtzēph - râshaph , to scatter sparks, sparkle, or glow: syn. gacheleth ), and that with a pair of tongs, because even a seraph’s hand cannot touch the vessels consecrated to God, or the sacrifices that belong to Him. With this red-hot coal he flew to Isaiah, and having touched his mouth with it, i. e. , that member of his body of whose uncleanness he had more especially complained (cf.

, Jer 1:9, where the prophet’s mouth is touched by Jehovah’s hand, and made eloquent in consequence), he assured him of the forgiveness of his sins, which coincided with the application of this sacramental sign. The Vav connects together what is affirmed by nâga‛ (hath touched) and sâr (a taker away) as being simultaneous; the zeh (this) points as a neuter to the red-hot coal.

The future tecuppâr is a future consec. , separated by Vav conversive for the purpose of bringing the subject into greater prominence; as it is practically impossible that the removal of guilt should be thought of as immediate and momentary, and the expiation as occurring gradually. The fact that the guilt was taken away was the very proof that the expiation was complete.

Cipper , with the “sin” in the accusative, or governed by על, signifies to cover it up, extinguish, or destroy it (for the primary meaning, vid. , Isa 28:18), so that it has no existence in relation to the penal justice of God. All sinful uncleanness was burned away from the prophet’s mouth. The seraph, therefore, did here what his name denotes: he burned up or burned away ( Comburit ).

He did this, however, not by virtue of his own fiery nature, but by means of the divine fire which he had taken from the heavenly altar. As the smoke which filled the house came from the altar, and arose in consequence of the adoration offered to the Lord by the seraphim, not only must the incense-offering upon the altar and this adoration be closely connected; but the fire, which revealed itself in the smoke and consumed the incense-offering, and which must necessarily have been divine because of its expiatory power, was an effect of the love of God with which He reciprocated the offerings of the seraphim.

A fiery look from God, and that a fiery look of pure love as the seraphim were sinless, had kindled the sacrifice. Now, if the fact that a seraph absolved the seer by means of this fire of love is to be taken as an illustrative example of the historical calling of the seraphim, they were the vehicles and media of the fire of divine love, just as the cherubim in Ezekiel are vehicles and media of the fire of divine wrath.

For just as, in the case before us, a seraph takes the fire of love from the altar; so there, in Eze 10:6-7, a cherub takes the fire of wrath from the throne-chariot. Consequently the cherubim appear as the vehicles and media of the wrath which destroys sinners, or rather of the divine doxa , with its fiery side turned towards the world; and the seraphim as the vehicles and media of the love which destroys sin, or of the same divine doxa with its light side towards the world.

Isa 6:6-7 This confession was followed by the forgiveness of his sins, of which he received an attestation through a heavenly sacrament, and which was conveyed to him through the medium of a seraphic absolution. “And one of the seraphim flew to me with a red-hot coal in his hand, which he had taken with the tongs from the altar. And he touched my mouth with it, and said, Behold, this hath touched thy lips, and thine iniquity is taken away; and so thy sin is expiated.

” One of the beings hovering round the Lord (there were, therefore, a large and indefinite number) flew to the altar of incense - the heavenly original of the altar of incense in the earthly temple, which was reckoned as belonging to the Most Holy Place - and took from this altar a ritzpâh , i. e. , either a red-hot stone (Vulg. Calculum , Ar. radfe or radafe ), or, according to the prevailing tradition, a red-hot coal (vid.

, râtzēph - râshaph , to scatter sparks, sparkle, or glow: syn. gacheleth ), and that with a pair of tongs, because even a seraph’s hand cannot touch the vessels consecrated to God, or the sacrifices that belong to Him. With this red-hot coal he flew to Isaiah, and having touched his mouth with it, i. e. , that member of his body of whose uncleanness he had more especially complained (cf.

, Jer 1:9, where the prophet’s mouth is touched by Jehovah’s hand, and made eloquent in consequence), he assured him of the forgiveness of his sins, which coincided with the application of this sacramental sign. The Vav connects together what is affirmed by nâga‛ (hath touched) and sâr (a taker away) as being simultaneous; the zeh (this) points as a neuter to the red-hot coal.

The future tecuppâr is a future consec. , separated by Vav conversive for the purpose of bringing the subject into greater prominence; as it is practically impossible that the removal of guilt should be thought of as immediate and momentary, and the expiation as occurring gradually. The fact that the guilt was taken away was the very proof that the expiation was complete.

Cipper , with the “sin” in the accusative, or governed by על, signifies to cover it up, extinguish, or destroy it (for the primary meaning, vid. , Isa 28:18), so that it has no existence in relation to the penal justice of God. All sinful uncleanness was burned away from the prophet’s mouth. The seraph, therefore, did here what his name denotes: he burned up or burned away ( Comburit ).

He did this, however, not by virtue of his own fiery nature, but by means of the divine fire which he had taken from the heavenly altar. As the smoke which filled the house came from the altar, and arose in consequence of the adoration offered to the Lord by the seraphim, not only must the incense-offering upon the altar and this adoration be closely connected; but the fire, which revealed itself in the smoke and consumed the incense-offering, and which must necessarily have been divine because of its expiatory power, was an effect of the love of God with which He reciprocated the offerings of the seraphim.

A fiery look from God, and that a fiery look of pure love as the seraphim were sinless, had kindled the sacrifice. Now, if the fact that a seraph absolved the seer by means of this fire of love is to be taken as an illustrative example of the historical calling of the seraphim, they were the vehicles and media of the fire of divine love, just as the cherubim in Ezekiel are vehicles and media of the fire of divine wrath.

For just as, in the case before us, a seraph takes the fire of love from the altar; so there, in Eze 10:6-7, a cherub takes the fire of wrath from the throne-chariot. Consequently the cherubim appear as the vehicles and media of the wrath which destroys sinners, or rather of the divine doxa , with its fiery side turned towards the world; and the seraphim as the vehicles and media of the love which destroys sin, or of the same divine doxa with its light side towards the world.

Isa 6:8 When Isaiah had been thus absolved, the true object of the heavenly scene was made apparent. ”Then I heard the voice of the Lord, saying, Whom shall I send, and who will go for us? Then I said, Behold me here; send me! ” The plural “for us” ( lânu ) is not to be accounted for on the ground that, in a case of reflection or self-consultation, the subject also stands as the object in antithesis to itself (as Hitzig supposes); nor is it a pluralis majestatis , as Knobel maintains; nor is the original abstract signification of the plural hinted at, as Meier thinks.

The plural is no doubt used here with reference to the seraphim, who formed, together with the Lord, one deliberative council ( sōd kedoshim , Psa 89:8), as in 1Ki 22:19-22; Dan 4:14, etc. ; just as, from their very nature as “sons of God” ( b'nē Hâ - elohim ), they made one family with God their Creator (vid. , Eph 3:15), all linked so closely together that they themselves could be called Elohim, like God their Creator, just as in 1Co 12:12 the church of believers is called Christos , like Christ its head.

The task for which the right man was sought was not merely divine , but heavenly in the broadest sense: for it is not only a matter in which God Himself is interested, that the earth should become full of the glory of God, but this is also an object of solicitude to the spirits that minister unto Him. Isaiah, whose anxiety to serve the Lord was no longer suppressed by the consciousness of his own sinfulness, no sooner heard the voice of the Lord, than he exclaimed, in holy self-consciousness, “Behold me here; send me.

” It is by no means a probable thing, that he had already acted as a messenger of God, or held the office of prophet. For if the joy, with which he offered himself here as the messenger of God, was the direct consequence of the forgiveness of sins, of which he had received the seal; the consciousness of his own personal sinfulness, and his membership in a sinful nation, would certainly have prevented him thereto from coming forward to denounce judgment upon that nation.

And as the prophetic office as such rested upon an extraordinary call from God, it may fairly be assumed, that when Isaiah relates so extraordinary a call as this, he is describing the sealing of his prophetic office, and therefore his own first call.

Isa 6:9-10 This is confirmed by the words in which his commission is expressed, and the substance of the message. “He said, Go, and tell this people, Hear on, and understand not; and look on, but perceive not. Make ye the heart of this people greasy, and their ears heavy, and their eyes sticky; that they may not see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and their heart understand, and they be converted, and one heal them.

” “This people” points back to the people of unclean lips, among whom Isaiah had complained of dwelling, and whom the Lord would not call “my people. ” It was to go to this people and preach to them, and therefore to be the prophet of this people, that he was called. But how mournful does the divine commission sound! It was the terrible opposite of that seraphic mission, which the prophet had experienced in himself.

The seraph had absolved Isaiah by the burning coal, that he as prophet might not absolve, but harden his people by his word. They were to hear and see, and that continually as the gerundives imply (Ges. §131, 3, b ; Ewald, §280, b ), by having the prophet’s preaching actu directo constantly before them; but not to their salvation. The two prohibitory expressions, “understand not” and “perceive not,” show what the result of the prophet’s preaching was to be, according to the judicial will of God.

And the imperatives in v. 10 are not to be understood as simply instructing the prophet to tell the people what God had determined to do; for the fact that “prophets are often said to do what they announce as about to happen,” in proof of which Jer 1:10 is sometimes quoted (cf. , Jer 31:28; Hos 6:5; Eze 43:3), has its truth not in a rhetorical figure, but in the very nature of the divine word.

The prophet was the organ of the word of God, and the word of God was the expression of the will of God, and the will of God is a divine act that has not yet become historical. For this reason a prophet might very well be said to perform what he announced as about to happen: God was the Causa efficiens principalis , the word was the Causa media , and the prophet the Causa ministerialis .

This is the force of the three imperatives; they are three figurative expressions of the idea of hardening. The first, hishmin , signifies to make fat ( pinguem ), i. e. , without susceptibility or feeling for the operations of divine grace (Psa 119:70); the second, hicbı̄d , to make heavy, more especially heavy or dull of hearing (Isa 59:1); the third, השׁע or השׁע (whence the imperative השׁע or השׁע), to smear thickly, or paste over, i.

e. , to put upon a person what is usually the result of weak eyes, which become firmly closed by the hardening of the adhesive substance secreted in the night. The three future clauses, with “lest” ( pen ), point back to these three imperatives in inverse order: their spiritual sight, spiritual hearing, and spiritual feeling were to be taken away, their eyes becoming blind, and their ears deaf, and their hearts being covered over with the grease of insensibility.

Under the influence of these futures the two preterites לו ורפא שׁב affirm what might have been the result if this hardening had not taken place, but what would never take place now. The expression ל רפא is used in every other instance in a transitive sense, “to heal a person or a disease,” and never in the sense of becoming well or being healed; but in the present instance it acquires a passive sense from the so-called impersonal construction (Ges.

§137, 3), “and one heal it,” i. e. , “and it be healed:” and it is in accordance with this sense that it is paraphrased in Mar 4:12, whereas in the three other passages in which the words are quoted in the New Testament (viz. , Matthew, John, and Acts) the Septuagint rendering is adopted, “and I should heal them” (God Himself being taken as the subject). The commission which the prophet received, reads as though it were quite irreconcilable with the fact that God, as the Good, can only will what is good.

But our earlier doctrinarians have suggested the true solution, when they affirm that God does not harden men positive aut effective , since His true will and direct work are man’s salvation, but occasionaliter et eventualiter , since the offers and displays of salvation which man receives necessarily serve to fill up the measure of his sins, and judicialiter so far as it is the judicial will of God, that what was originally ordained for men’s salvation should result after all in judgment, in the case of any man upon whom grace has ceased to work, because all its ways and means have been completely exhausted. It is not only the loving will of God which is good, but also the wrathful will into which His loving will changes, when determinately and obstinately resisted.

There is a self-hardening in evil, which renders a man thoroughly incorrigible, and which, regarded as the fruit of his moral behaviour, is no less a judicial punishment inflicted by God, than self-induced guilt on the part of man. The two are bound up in one another, inasmuch as sin from its very nature bears its own punishment, which consists in the wrath of God excited by sin.

For just as in all the good that men do, the active principle is the love of God; so in all the harm that they do, the active principle is the wrath of God. An evil act in itself is the result of self-determination proceeding from a man’s own will; but evil, regarded as the mischief in which evil acting quickly issues, is the result of the inherent wrath of God, which is the obverse of His inherent love; and when a man hardens himself in evil, it is the inward working of God’s peremptory wrath.

To this wrath Israel had delivered itself up through its continued obstinacy in sinning. And consequently the Lord now proceeded to shut the door of repentance against His people. Nevertheless He directed the prophet to preach repentance, because the judgment of hardness suspended over the people as a whole did not preclude the possibility of the salvation of individuals.

Isa 6:9-10 This is confirmed by the words in which his commission is expressed, and the substance of the message. “He said, Go, and tell this people, Hear on, and understand not; and look on, but perceive not. Make ye the heart of this people greasy, and their ears heavy, and their eyes sticky; that they may not see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and their heart understand, and they be converted, and one heal them.

” “This people” points back to the people of unclean lips, among whom Isaiah had complained of dwelling, and whom the Lord would not call “my people. ” It was to go to this people and preach to them, and therefore to be the prophet of this people, that he was called. But how mournful does the divine commission sound! It was the terrible opposite of that seraphic mission, which the prophet had experienced in himself.

The seraph had absolved Isaiah by the burning coal, that he as prophet might not absolve, but harden his people by his word. They were to hear and see, and that continually as the gerundives imply (Ges. §131, 3, b ; Ewald, §280, b ), by having the prophet’s preaching actu directo constantly before them; but not to their salvation. The two prohibitory expressions, “understand not” and “perceive not,” show what the result of the prophet’s preaching was to be, according to the judicial will of God.

And the imperatives in v. 10 are not to be understood as simply instructing the prophet to tell the people what God had determined to do; for the fact that “prophets are often said to do what they announce as about to happen,” in proof of which Jer 1:10 is sometimes quoted (cf. , Jer 31:28; Hos 6:5; Eze 43:3), has its truth not in a rhetorical figure, but in the very nature of the divine word.

The prophet was the organ of the word of God, and the word of God was the expression of the will of God, and the will of God is a divine act that has not yet become historical. For this reason a prophet might very well be said to perform what he announced as about to happen: God was the Causa efficiens principalis , the word was the Causa media , and the prophet the Causa ministerialis .

This is the force of the three imperatives; they are three figurative expressions of the idea of hardening. The first, hishmin , signifies to make fat ( pinguem ), i. e. , without susceptibility or feeling for the operations of divine grace (Psa 119:70); the second, hicbı̄d , to make heavy, more especially heavy or dull of hearing (Isa 59:1); the third, השׁע or השׁע (whence the imperative השׁע or השׁע), to smear thickly, or paste over, i.

e. , to put upon a person what is usually the result of weak eyes, which become firmly closed by the hardening of the adhesive substance secreted in the night. The three future clauses, with “lest” ( pen ), point back to these three imperatives in inverse order: their spiritual sight, spiritual hearing, and spiritual feeling were to be taken away, their eyes becoming blind, and their ears deaf, and their hearts being covered over with the grease of insensibility.

Under the influence of these futures the two preterites לו ורפא שׁב affirm what might have been the result if this hardening had not taken place, but what would never take place now. The expression ל רפא is used in every other instance in a transitive sense, “to heal a person or a disease,” and never in the sense of becoming well or being healed; but in the present instance it acquires a passive sense from the so-called impersonal construction (Ges.

§137, 3), “and one heal it,” i. e. , “and it be healed:” and it is in accordance with this sense that it is paraphrased in Mar 4:12, whereas in the three other passages in which the words are quoted in the New Testament (viz. , Matthew, John, and Acts) the Septuagint rendering is adopted, “and I should heal them” (God Himself being taken as the subject). The commission which the prophet received, reads as though it were quite irreconcilable with the fact that God, as the Good, can only will what is good.

But our earlier doctrinarians have suggested the true solution, when they affirm that God does not harden men positive aut effective , since His true will and direct work are man’s salvation, but occasionaliter et eventualiter , since the offers and displays of salvation which man receives necessarily serve to fill up the measure of his sins, and judicialiter so far as it is the judicial will of God, that what was originally ordained for men’s salvation should result after all in judgment, in the case of any man upon whom grace has ceased to work, because all its ways and means have been completely exhausted. It is not only the loving will of God which is good, but also the wrathful will into which His loving will changes, when determinately and obstinately resisted.

There is a self-hardening in evil, which renders a man thoroughly incorrigible, and which, regarded as the fruit of his moral behaviour, is no less a judicial punishment inflicted by God, than self-induced guilt on the part of man. The two are bound up in one another, inasmuch as sin from its very nature bears its own punishment, which consists in the wrath of God excited by sin.

For just as in all the good that men do, the active principle is the love of God; so in all the harm that they do, the active principle is the wrath of God. An evil act in itself is the result of self-determination proceeding from a man’s own will; but evil, regarded as the mischief in which evil acting quickly issues, is the result of the inherent wrath of God, which is the obverse of His inherent love; and when a man hardens himself in evil, it is the inward working of God’s peremptory wrath.

To this wrath Israel had delivered itself up through its continued obstinacy in sinning. And consequently the Lord now proceeded to shut the door of repentance against His people. Nevertheless He directed the prophet to preach repentance, because the judgment of hardness suspended over the people as a whole did not preclude the possibility of the salvation of individuals.

Isa 6:11-13 Isaiah heard with sighing, and yet with obedience, in what the mission to which he had so cheerfully offered himself was to consist. Isa 6:11 . “Then said I, Lord, how long? ” He inquired how long this service of hardening and this state of hardness were to continue - a question forced from him by his sympathy with the nation to which he himself belonged (cf.

, Exo 32:9-14), and one which was warranted by the certainty that God, who is ever true to His promises, could not cast off Israel as a people for ever. The answer follows in Isa 6:11-13 : “Until towns are wasted without inhabitant, and houses are without man, and the ground shall be laid waste, a wilderness, and Jehovah shall put men far away, and there shall be many forsaken places within the land.

And is there still a tenth therein, this also again is given up to destruction, like the terebinth and like the oak, of which, when they are felled, only a root-stump remains: such a root-stump is a holy seed. ” The answer is intentionally commenced, not with עד־כּי, but with אם אשׁר עד (the expression only occurs again in Gen 28:15 and Num 32:17), which, even without dropping the conditional force of אם, signified that the hardening judgment would only come to an end when the condition had been fulfilled, that towns, houses, and the soil of the land of Israel and its environs had been made desolate, in fact, utterly and universally desolate, as the three definitions (without inhabitant, without man, wilderness) affirm.

The expression richak (put far away) is a general and enigmatical description of exile or captivity (cf. , Joe. 4:6, Jer 27:10); the literal term gâlâh has been already used in Isa 5:13. Instead of a national term being used, we find here simply the general expression “ men ” ( eth - hâēâdâm ; the consequence of depopulation, viz. , the entire absence of men, being expressed in connection with the depopulation itself.

The participial noun hâ azubâh (the forsaken) is a collective term for places once full of life, that had afterwards died out and fallen into ruins (Isa 17:2, Isa 17:9). This judgment would be followed by a second, which would expose the still remaining tenth of the nation to a sifting. והיה שׁב, to become again (Ges. §142, 3); לבער היה, not as in Isa 5:5, but as in Isa 4:4, after Num 24:22 : the feminine does not refer to the land of Israel (Luzzatto), but to the tenth.

Up to the words “given up to destruction,” the announcement is a threatening one; but from this point to “remains” a consolatory prospect begins to dawn; and in the last three words this brighter prospect, like a distant streak of light, bounds the horizon of the gloomy prophecy. It shall happen as with the terebinth and oak. These trees were selected as illustrations, not only because they were so near akin to evergreens, and produced a similar impression, or because there were so many associations connected with them in the olden times of Israel’s history; but also because they formed such fitting symbols of Israel, on account of their peculiar facility for springing up again from the root (like the beech and nut, for example), even when they had been completely felled.

As the forms yabbesheth (dryness), dalleketh (fever), ‛avvereth (blindness), shachepheth (consumption), are used to denote certain qualities or states, and those for the most part faulty ones ( Concord . p. 1350); so shalleceth here does not refer to the act itself of felling or casting away, but rather to the condition of a tree that has been hewn or thrown down; though not to the condition of the trunk as it lies prostrate upon the ground, but to that of the root, which is still left in the earth.

Of this tree, that had been deprived of its trunk and crown, there was still a mazzebeth kindred form of mazzebâh ), i. e. , a root-stump ( truncus ) fast in the ground. The tree was not yet entirely destroyed; the root-stump could shoot out and put forth branches again. And this would take place: the root-stump of the oak or terebinth, which was a symbol of Israel, was “a holy seed.

” The root-stump was the remnant that had survived the judgment, and this remnant would become a seed, out of which a new Israel would spring up after the old had been destroyed. Thus in a few weighty words is the way sketched out, which God would henceforth take with His people. The passage contains an outline of the history of Israel to the end of time. Israel as a nation was indestructible, by virtue of the promise of God; but the mass of the people were doomed to destruction through the judicial sentence of God, and only a remnant, which would be converted, would perpetuate the nationality of Israel, and inherit the glorious future.

This law of a blessing sunk in the depths of the curse actually inflicted, still prevails in the history of the Jews. The way of salvation is open to all. Individuals find it, and give us a presentiment of what might be and is to be; but the great mass are hopelessly lost, and only when they have been swept away will a holy seed, saved by the covenant-keeping God, grow up into a new and holy Israel, which, according to Isa 27:6, will fill the earth with its fruits, or, as the apostle expresses it in Rom 11:12, become “the riches of the Gentiles.

” Now, if the impression which we have received from Isa 6:1-13 is not a false one - namely, that the prophet is here relating his first call to the prophetic office, and not, as Seb. Schmidt observes, his call to one particular duty ( ad unum specialem actum officii ) - this impression may be easily verified, inasmuch as the addresses in chapters 1-5 will be sure to contain the elements which are here handed to the prophet by revelation, and the result of these addresses will correspond to the sentence judicially pronounced here.

And the conclusion to which we have come will stand this test. For the prophet, in the very first address, after pointing out to the nation as a whole the gracious pathway of justification and sanctification, takes the turn indicated in Isa 6:11-13, in full consciousness that all is in vain. And the theme of the second address is, that it will be only after the overthrow of the false glory of Israel that the true glory promised can possibly be realized, and that after the destruction of the great body of the people only a small remnant will live to see this realization.

The parable with which the third begins, rests upon the supposition that the measure of the nation’s iniquity is full; and the threatening of judgment introduced by this parable agrees substantially, and in part verbally, with the divine answer received by the prophet to his question “How long? ” On every side, therefore, the opinion is confirmed, that in Isa 6:1-13 he describes his own consecration to the prophetic office.

The addresses in chapters 2-4 and 5, which belong to the time of Uzziah and Jotham, do not fall earlier than the year of Uzziah’s death, from which point the whole of Jotham’s sixteen years’ reign lay open before them. Now, as Micah commenced his ministry in Jotham’s reign, though his book was written in the form of a complete and chronologically indivisible summary, by the working up of the prophecies which he delivered under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, and was then read or published in the time of Hezekiah, as we may infer from Jer 26:18, it is quite possible that Isaiah may have taken from Micah’s own lips (though not from Micah’s book) the words of promise in Isa 2:1-4, which he certainly borrowed from some quarter.

The notion that this word of promise originated with a third prophet (who must have been Joel, if he were one of the prophets known to us), is rendered very improbable by the many marks of Micah’s prophetic peculiarities, and by its natural position in the context in which it there occurs (vid. , Caspari, Micha , pp. 444-5). Again, the situation of Isa 6:1-13 is not inexplicable.

As Hävernick has observed, the prophet evidently intended to vindicate in Isa 6:1-13 the style and method of his previous prophecies, on the ground of the divine commission that he had received. but this only serves to explain the reason why Isaiah has not placed Isa 6:1-13 at the commencement of the collection, and not why he inserts it in this particular place.

He has done this, no doubt, for the purpose of bringing close together the prophecy and its fulfilment; for whilst on the one hand the judgment of hardening suspended over the Jewish nation is brought distinctly out in the person of king Ahaz, on the other hand we find ourselves in the midst of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, which formed the introduction to the judgments of extermination predicted in Isa 6:11-13. It is only the position of chapter 1 which still remains in obscurity.

If Isa 1:7-9 is to be understood in a historically literally sense, then chapter 1 must have been composed after the dangers of the Syro-Ephraimitish war had been averted from Jerusalem, though the land of Judah was still bleeding with the open wounds which this war, designed as it was to destroy it altogether, had inflicted upon it. Chapter 1 would therefore be of more recent origin than chapters 2-5, and still more recent than the connected chapters 7-12.

It is only the comparatively more general and indefinite character of chapter 1 which seems at variance with this. But this difficulty is removed at once, if we assume that chapter 1, though not indeed the first of the prophet’s addresses, was yet in one sense the first - namely, the first that was committed to writing, though not the first that he delivered, and that it was primarily intended to form the preface to the addresses and historical accounts in chapters 2-12, the contents of which were regulated by it.

For chapters 2-5 and 7-12 form two prophetic cycles, chapter 1 being the portal which leads into them, and Isa 6:1-13 the band which connects them together. The prophetic cycle in chapters 2-5 may be called the Book of hardening , as it is by Caspari, and chapters 7-12 the Book of Immanuel , as Chr. Aug. Crusius suggests, because in all the stages through which the proclamation in chapters 7-12 passes, the coming Immanuel is the banner of consolation, which it lifts up even in the midst of the judgments already breaking upon the people, in accordance with the doom pronounced upon them in Isa 6:1-13.

Isa 6:11-13 Isaiah heard with sighing, and yet with obedience, in what the mission to which he had so cheerfully offered himself was to consist. Isa 6:11 . “Then said I, Lord, how long? ” He inquired how long this service of hardening and this state of hardness were to continue - a question forced from him by his sympathy with the nation to which he himself belonged (cf.

, Exo 32:9-14), and one which was warranted by the certainty that God, who is ever true to His promises, could not cast off Israel as a people for ever. The answer follows in Isa 6:11-13 : “Until towns are wasted without inhabitant, and houses are without man, and the ground shall be laid waste, a wilderness, and Jehovah shall put men far away, and there shall be many forsaken places within the land.

And is there still a tenth therein, this also again is given up to destruction, like the terebinth and like the oak, of which, when they are felled, only a root-stump remains: such a root-stump is a holy seed. ” The answer is intentionally commenced, not with עד־כּי, but with אם אשׁר עד (the expression only occurs again in Gen 28:15 and Num 32:17), which, even without dropping the conditional force of אם, signified that the hardening judgment would only come to an end when the condition had been fulfilled, that towns, houses, and the soil of the land of Israel and its environs had been made desolate, in fact, utterly and universally desolate, as the three definitions (without inhabitant, without man, wilderness) affirm.

The expression richak (put far away) is a general and enigmatical description of exile or captivity (cf. , Joe. 4:6, Jer 27:10); the literal term gâlâh has been already used in Isa 5:13. Instead of a national term being used, we find here simply the general expression “ men ” ( eth - hâēâdâm ; the consequence of depopulation, viz. , the entire absence of men, being expressed in connection with the depopulation itself.

The participial noun hâ azubâh (the forsaken) is a collective term for places once full of life, that had afterwards died out and fallen into ruins (Isa 17:2, Isa 17:9). This judgment would be followed by a second, which would expose the still remaining tenth of the nation to a sifting. והיה שׁב, to become again (Ges. §142, 3); לבער היה, not as in Isa 5:5, but as in Isa 4:4, after Num 24:22 : the feminine does not refer to the land of Israel (Luzzatto), but to the tenth.

Up to the words “given up to destruction,” the announcement is a threatening one; but from this point to “remains” a consolatory prospect begins to dawn; and in the last three words this brighter prospect, like a distant streak of light, bounds the horizon of the gloomy prophecy. It shall happen as with the terebinth and oak. These trees were selected as illustrations, not only because they were so near akin to evergreens, and produced a similar impression, or because there were so many associations connected with them in the olden times of Israel’s history; but also because they formed such fitting symbols of Israel, on account of their peculiar facility for springing up again from the root (like the beech and nut, for example), even when they had been completely felled.

As the forms yabbesheth (dryness), dalleketh (fever), ‛avvereth (blindness), shachepheth (consumption), are used to denote certain qualities or states, and those for the most part faulty ones ( Concord . p. 1350); so shalleceth here does not refer to the act itself of felling or casting away, but rather to the condition of a tree that has been hewn or thrown down; though not to the condition of the trunk as it lies prostrate upon the ground, but to that of the root, which is still left in the earth.

Of this tree, that had been deprived of its trunk and crown, there was still a mazzebeth kindred form of mazzebâh ), i. e. , a root-stump ( truncus ) fast in the ground. The tree was not yet entirely destroyed; the root-stump could shoot out and put forth branches again. And this would take place: the root-stump of the oak or terebinth, which was a symbol of Israel, was “a holy seed.

” The root-stump was the remnant that had survived the judgment, and this remnant would become a seed, out of which a new Israel would spring up after the old had been destroyed. Thus in a few weighty words is the way sketched out, which God would henceforth take with His people. The passage contains an outline of the history of Israel to the end of time. Israel as a nation was indestructible, by virtue of the promise of God; but the mass of the people were doomed to destruction through the judicial sentence of God, and only a remnant, which would be converted, would perpetuate the nationality of Israel, and inherit the glorious future.

This law of a blessing sunk in the depths of the curse actually inflicted, still prevails in the history of the Jews. The way of salvation is open to all. Individuals find it, and give us a presentiment of what might be and is to be; but the great mass are hopelessly lost, and only when they have been swept away will a holy seed, saved by the covenant-keeping God, grow up into a new and holy Israel, which, according to Isa 27:6, will fill the earth with its fruits, or, as the apostle expresses it in Rom 11:12, become “the riches of the Gentiles.

” Now, if the impression which we have received from Isa 6:1-13 is not a false one - namely, that the prophet is here relating his first call to the prophetic office, and not, as Seb. Schmidt observes, his call to one particular duty ( ad unum specialem actum officii ) - this impression may be easily verified, inasmuch as the addresses in chapters 1-5 will be sure to contain the elements which are here handed to the prophet by revelation, and the result of these addresses will correspond to the sentence judicially pronounced here.

And the conclusion to which we have come will stand this test. For the prophet, in the very first address, after pointing out to the nation as a whole the gracious pathway of justification and sanctification, takes the turn indicated in Isa 6:11-13, in full consciousness that all is in vain. And the theme of the second address is, that it will be only after the overthrow of the false glory of Israel that the true glory promised can possibly be realized, and that after the destruction of the great body of the people only a small remnant will live to see this realization.

The parable with which the third begins, rests upon the supposition that the measure of the nation’s iniquity is full; and the threatening of judgment introduced by this parable agrees substantially, and in part verbally, with the divine answer received by the prophet to his question “How long? ” On every side, therefore, the opinion is confirmed, that in Isa 6:1-13 he describes his own consecration to the prophetic office.

The addresses in chapters 2-4 and 5, which belong to the time of Uzziah and Jotham, do not fall earlier than the year of Uzziah’s death, from which point the whole of Jotham’s sixteen years’ reign lay open before them. Now, as Micah commenced his ministry in Jotham’s reign, though his book was written in the form of a complete and chronologically indivisible summary, by the working up of the prophecies which he delivered under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, and was then read or published in the time of Hezekiah, as we may infer from Jer 26:18, it is quite possible that Isaiah may have taken from Micah’s own lips (though not from Micah’s book) the words of promise in Isa 2:1-4, which he certainly borrowed from some quarter.

The notion that this word of promise originated with a third prophet (who must have been Joel, if he were one of the prophets known to us), is rendered very improbable by the many marks of Micah’s prophetic peculiarities, and by its natural position in the context in which it there occurs (vid. , Caspari, Micha , pp. 444-5). Again, the situation of Isa 6:1-13 is not inexplicable.

As Hävernick has observed, the prophet evidently intended to vindicate in Isa 6:1-13 the style and method of his previous prophecies, on the ground of the divine commission that he had received. but this only serves to explain the reason why Isaiah has not placed Isa 6:1-13 at the commencement of the collection, and not why he inserts it in this particular place.

He has done this, no doubt, for the purpose of bringing close together the prophecy and its fulfilment; for whilst on the one hand the judgment of hardening suspended over the Jewish nation is brought distinctly out in the person of king Ahaz, on the other hand we find ourselves in the midst of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, which formed the introduction to the judgments of extermination predicted in Isa 6:11-13. It is only the position of chapter 1 which still remains in obscurity.

If Isa 1:7-9 is to be understood in a historically literally sense, then chapter 1 must have been composed after the dangers of the Syro-Ephraimitish war had been averted from Jerusalem, though the land of Judah was still bleeding with the open wounds which this war, designed as it was to destroy it altogether, had inflicted upon it. Chapter 1 would therefore be of more recent origin than chapters 2-5, and still more recent than the connected chapters 7-12.

It is only the comparatively more general and indefinite character of chapter 1 which seems at variance with this. But this difficulty is removed at once, if we assume that chapter 1, though not indeed the first of the prophet’s addresses, was yet in one sense the first - namely, the first that was committed to writing, though not the first that he delivered, and that it was primarily intended to form the preface to the addresses and historical accounts in chapters 2-12, the contents of which were regulated by it.

For chapters 2-5 and 7-12 form two prophetic cycles, chapter 1 being the portal which leads into them, and Isa 6:1-13 the band which connects them together. The prophetic cycle in chapters 2-5 may be called the Book of hardening , as it is by Caspari, and chapters 7-12 the Book of Immanuel , as Chr. Aug. Crusius suggests, because in all the stages through which the proclamation in chapters 7-12 passes, the coming Immanuel is the banner of consolation, which it lifts up even in the midst of the judgments already breaking upon the people, in accordance with the doom pronounced upon them in Isa 6:1-13.

Isa 6:11-13 Isaiah heard with sighing, and yet with obedience, in what the mission to which he had so cheerfully offered himself was to consist. Isa 6:11 . “Then said I, Lord, how long? ” He inquired how long this service of hardening and this state of hardness were to continue - a question forced from him by his sympathy with the nation to which he himself belonged (cf.

, Exo 32:9-14), and one which was warranted by the certainty that God, who is ever true to His promises, could not cast off Israel as a people for ever. The answer follows in Isa 6:11-13 : “Until towns are wasted without inhabitant, and houses are without man, and the ground shall be laid waste, a wilderness, and Jehovah shall put men far away, and there shall be many forsaken places within the land.

And is there still a tenth therein, this also again is given up to destruction, like the terebinth and like the oak, of which, when they are felled, only a root-stump remains: such a root-stump is a holy seed. ” The answer is intentionally commenced, not with עד־כּי, but with אם אשׁר עד (the expression only occurs again in Gen 28:15 and Num 32:17), which, even without dropping the conditional force of אם, signified that the hardening judgment would only come to an end when the condition had been fulfilled, that towns, houses, and the soil of the land of Israel and its environs had been made desolate, in fact, utterly and universally desolate, as the three definitions (without inhabitant, without man, wilderness) affirm.

The expression richak (put far away) is a general and enigmatical description of exile or captivity (cf. , Joe. 4:6, Jer 27:10); the literal term gâlâh has been already used in Isa 5:13. Instead of a national term being used, we find here simply the general expression “ men ” ( eth - hâēâdâm ; the consequence of depopulation, viz. , the entire absence of men, being expressed in connection with the depopulation itself.

The participial noun hâ azubâh (the forsaken) is a collective term for places once full of life, that had afterwards died out and fallen into ruins (Isa 17:2, Isa 17:9). This judgment would be followed by a second, which would expose the still remaining tenth of the nation to a sifting. והיה שׁב, to become again (Ges. §142, 3); לבער היה, not as in Isa 5:5, but as in Isa 4:4, after Num 24:22 : the feminine does not refer to the land of Israel (Luzzatto), but to the tenth.

Up to the words “given up to destruction,” the announcement is a threatening one; but from this point to “remains” a consolatory prospect begins to dawn; and in the last three words this brighter prospect, like a distant streak of light, bounds the horizon of the gloomy prophecy. It shall happen as with the terebinth and oak. These trees were selected as illustrations, not only because they were so near akin to evergreens, and produced a similar impression, or because there were so many associations connected with them in the olden times of Israel’s history; but also because they formed such fitting symbols of Israel, on account of their peculiar facility for springing up again from the root (like the beech and nut, for example), even when they had been completely felled.

As the forms yabbesheth (dryness), dalleketh (fever), ‛avvereth (blindness), shachepheth (consumption), are used to denote certain qualities or states, and those for the most part faulty ones ( Concord . p. 1350); so shalleceth here does not refer to the act itself of felling or casting away, but rather to the condition of a tree that has been hewn or thrown down; though not to the condition of the trunk as it lies prostrate upon the ground, but to that of the root, which is still left in the earth.

Of this tree, that had been deprived of its trunk and crown, there was still a mazzebeth kindred form of mazzebâh ), i. e. , a root-stump ( truncus ) fast in the ground. The tree was not yet entirely destroyed; the root-stump could shoot out and put forth branches again. And this would take place: the root-stump of the oak or terebinth, which was a symbol of Israel, was “a holy seed.

” The root-stump was the remnant that had survived the judgment, and this remnant would become a seed, out of which a new Israel would spring up after the old had been destroyed. Thus in a few weighty words is the way sketched out, which God would henceforth take with His people. The passage contains an outline of the history of Israel to the end of time. Israel as a nation was indestructible, by virtue of the promise of God; but the mass of the people were doomed to destruction through the judicial sentence of God, and only a remnant, which would be converted, would perpetuate the nationality of Israel, and inherit the glorious future.

This law of a blessing sunk in the depths of the curse actually inflicted, still prevails in the history of the Jews. The way of salvation is open to all. Individuals find it, and give us a presentiment of what might be and is to be; but the great mass are hopelessly lost, and only when they have been swept away will a holy seed, saved by the covenant-keeping God, grow up into a new and holy Israel, which, according to Isa 27:6, will fill the earth with its fruits, or, as the apostle expresses it in Rom 11:12, become “the riches of the Gentiles.

” Now, if the impression which we have received from Isa 6:1-13 is not a false one - namely, that the prophet is here relating his first call to the prophetic office, and not, as Seb. Schmidt observes, his call to one particular duty ( ad unum specialem actum officii ) - this impression may be easily verified, inasmuch as the addresses in chapters 1-5 will be sure to contain the elements which are here handed to the prophet by revelation, and the result of these addresses will correspond to the sentence judicially pronounced here.

And the conclusion to which we have come will stand this test. For the prophet, in the very first address, after pointing out to the nation as a whole the gracious pathway of justification and sanctification, takes the turn indicated in Isa 6:11-13, in full consciousness that all is in vain. And the theme of the second address is, that it will be only after the overthrow of the false glory of Israel that the true glory promised can possibly be realized, and that after the destruction of the great body of the people only a small remnant will live to see this realization.

The parable with which the third begins, rests upon the supposition that the measure of the nation’s iniquity is full; and the threatening of judgment introduced by this parable agrees substantially, and in part verbally, with the divine answer received by the prophet to his question “How long? ” On every side, therefore, the opinion is confirmed, that in Isa 6:1-13 he describes his own consecration to the prophetic office.

The addresses in chapters 2-4 and 5, which belong to the time of Uzziah and Jotham, do not fall earlier than the year of Uzziah’s death, from which point the whole of Jotham’s sixteen years’ reign lay open before them. Now, as Micah commenced his ministry in Jotham’s reign, though his book was written in the form of a complete and chronologically indivisible summary, by the working up of the prophecies which he delivered under Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, and was then read or published in the time of Hezekiah, as we may infer from Jer 26:18, it is quite possible that Isaiah may have taken from Micah’s own lips (though not from Micah’s book) the words of promise in Isa 2:1-4, which he certainly borrowed from some quarter.

The notion that this word of promise originated with a third prophet (who must have been Joel, if he were one of the prophets known to us), is rendered very improbable by the many marks of Micah’s prophetic peculiarities, and by its natural position in the context in which it there occurs (vid. , Caspari, Micha , pp. 444-5). Again, the situation of Isa 6:1-13 is not inexplicable.

As Hävernick has observed, the prophet evidently intended to vindicate in Isa 6:1-13 the style and method of his previous prophecies, on the ground of the divine commission that he had received. but this only serves to explain the reason why Isaiah has not placed Isa 6:1-13 at the commencement of the collection, and not why he inserts it in this particular place.

He has done this, no doubt, for the purpose of bringing close together the prophecy and its fulfilment; for whilst on the one hand the judgment of hardening suspended over the Jewish nation is brought distinctly out in the person of king Ahaz, on the other hand we find ourselves in the midst of the Syro-Ephraimitish war, which formed the introduction to the judgments of extermination predicted in Isa 6:11-13. It is only the position of chapter 1 which still remains in obscurity.

If Isa 1:7-9 is to be understood in a historically literally sense, then chapter 1 must have been composed after the dangers of the Syro-Ephraimitish war had been averted from Jerusalem, though the land of Judah was still bleeding with the open wounds which this war, designed as it was to destroy it altogether, had inflicted upon it. Chapter 1 would therefore be of more recent origin than chapters 2-5, and still more recent than the connected chapters 7-12.

It is only the comparatively more general and indefinite character of chapter 1 which seems at variance with this. But this difficulty is removed at once, if we assume that chapter 1, though not indeed the first of the prophet’s addresses, was yet in one sense the first - namely, the first that was committed to writing, though not the first that he delivered, and that it was primarily intended to form the preface to the addresses and historical accounts in chapters 2-12, the contents of which were regulated by it.

For chapters 2-5 and 7-12 form two prophetic cycles, chapter 1 being the portal which leads into them, and Isa 6:1-13 the band which connects them together. The prophetic cycle in chapters 2-5 may be called the Book of hardening , as it is by Caspari, and chapters 7-12 the Book of Immanuel , as Chr. Aug. Crusius suggests, because in all the stages through which the proclamation in chapters 7-12 passes, the coming Immanuel is the banner of consolation, which it lifts up even in the midst of the judgments already breaking upon the people, in accordance with the doom pronounced upon them in Isa 6:1-13.

Isa 7:1 As the following prophecies could not be understood apart from the historical circumstances to which they refer, the prophet commences with a historical announcement. ”It came to pass, in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah ( Uziyâhu ) , king of Judah, that Rezin the king of Aramaea, and Pekah ( Pekach ) the son of Remaliah ( Remalyâhu ) , king of Israel, went up toward Jerusalem to war against it, and ( he ) could not make war upon it.

” We have the same words, with only slight variations, in the history of the reign of Ahaz in 2Ki 16:5. That the author of the book of Kings copied them from the book of Isaiah, will be very apparent when we come to examine the historical chapters (36-39) in their relation to the parallel sections of the book of Kings. In the passage before us, the want of independence on the part of the author of the book of Kings is confirmed by the fact that he not only repeats, but also interprets, the words of Isaiah.

Instead of saying, “And (he) could not make war upon it,” he says, “And they besieged Ahaz, and could not make war. ” The singular yâcol (he could) of Isaiah is changed into the simpler plural, whilst the statement that the two allies could not assault or storm Jerusalem (which must be the meaning of nilcham ‛al in the passage before us), is more clearly defined by the additional information that they did besiege Ahaz, but to no purpose ( tzur ‛al , the usual expression for obsidione claudere ; cf.

, Deu 20:19). The statement that “they besieged Ahaz” cannot merely signify that “they attempted to besiege him,” although nothing further is known about this siege. But happily we have two accounts of the Syro-Ephraimitish war (2 Kings 16 and 2 Chron 28). The two historical books complete one another. The book of Kings relates that the invasion of Judah by the two allies commenced at the end of Jotham’s reign (2Ki 15:37); and in addition to the statement taken from Isa 7:1, it also mentions that Rezin conquered the seaport town of Elath, which then belonged to the kingdom of Judah; whilst the Chronicles notice the fact that Rezin brought a number of Judaean captives to Damascus, and that Pekah conquered Ahaz in a bloody and destructive battle.

Indisputable as the credibility of these events may be, it is nevertheless very difficult to connect them together, either substantially or chronologically, in a certain and reliable manner, as Caspari has attempted to do in his monograph on the Syro-Ephraimitish war (1849). We may refer here to our own manner of dovetailing the historical accounts of Ahaz and the Syro-Ephraimitish war in the introduction to the present work (p.

23ff.) If we could assume that יכל (not יכלוּ) was the authentic reading, and that the failure of the attempt to take Jerusalem, which is mentioned here, was occasioned by the strength of the city itself, and not by the intervention of Assyria - so that Isa 7:1 did not contain such an anticipation as we have supposed, although summary anticipations of this kind were customary with biblical historians, and more especially with Isaiah - the course of events might be arranged in the following manner, viz.

, that whilst Rezin was on his way to Elath, Pekah resolved to attack Jerusalem, but failed in his attempt; but that Rezin was more successful in his expedition, which was a much easier one, and after the conquest of Elath united his forces with those of his allies.

Isa 7:2 It is this which is referred to in Isa 7:2 : “And it was told the house of David, Aram has settled down upon Ephraim: then his heart shook, and the heart of his people, as trees of the wood shake before the wind. ” The expression nuach ‛al (settled down upon) is explained in 2Sa 17:12 (cf. , Jdg 7:12) by the figurative simile, “as the dew falleth upon the ground:” there it denotes a hostile invasion, here the arrival of one army to the support of another.

Ephraim ( feminine , like the names of countries, and of the people that are regarded as included in their respective countries: see, on the other hand, Isa 3:8) is used as the name of the leading tribe of Israel, to signify the whole kingdom; here it denotes the whole military force of Israel. Following the combination mentioned above, we find that the allies now prepared for a second united expedition against Jerusalem.

In the meantime, Jerusalem was in the condition described in Isa 1:7-9, viz. , like a besieged city, in the midst of enemies plundering and burning on every side. Elath had fallen, as Rezin’s timely return clearly showed; and in the prospect of his approaching junction with the allied army, it was quite natural, from a human point of view, that the court and people of Jerusalem should tremble like aspen leaves.

וינע is a contracted fut . kal , ending with an a sound on account of the guttural, as in Rth 4:1 (Ges. §72, Anm. 4); and נוע, which is generally the form of the infin. abs . (Isa 24:20), is here, and only here, the infin. constr . instead of נוּע (cf. , noach , Num 11:25; shob , Jos 2:16; mōt , Psa 38:17, etc. : vid. , Ewald, §238, b ).

Isa 7:3 In this season of terror Isaiah received the following divine instructions. “Then said Jehovah to Isaiah, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou and Shear-jashub thy son, to the end of the aqueduct of the upper pool, to the road of the fuller’s field. ” The fuller’s field ( sedēh cōbēs ) was situated, as we may assume with Robinson, Schultz, and Thenius, against Williams, Krafft, etc.

, on the western side of the city, where there is still an “upper pool” of great antiquity (2Ch 32:30). Near to this pool the fullers, i. e. , the cleaners and thickeners of woollen fabrics, carried on their occupation ( Cōbēs , from Câbas , related to Câbash , subigere , which bears the same relation to râchatz as πλύνειν to λούειν). Robinson and his companions saw some people washing clothes at the upper pool when they were there; and, for a considerable distance round, the surface of this favourite washing and bleaching place was covered with things spread out to bleach or dry.

The road ( mesillâh ), which ran past this fuller’s field, was the one which leads from the western gate to Joppa. King Ahaz was there, on the west of the city, and outside the fortifications - engaged, no doubt, in making provision for the probable event of Jerusalem being again besieged in a still more threatening manner. Jerusalem received its water supply from the upper Gihon pool, and there, according to Jehovah’s directions, Isaiah was to go with his son and meet him.

The two together were, as it were, a personified blessing and curse, presenting themselves to the king for him to make his own selection. For the name Sheâr - yâshub (which is erroneously accentuated with tiphchah munach instead of merchah tiphchah , as in Isa 10:22), i. e. , the remnant is converted (Isa 10:21-22), was a kind of abbreviation of the divine answer given to the prophet in Isa 6:11-13, and was indeed at once threatening and promising, but in such a way that the curse stood in front and the grace behind.

The prophetic name of Isaiah’s son was intended to drive the king to Jehovah by force, through the threatening aspect it presented; and the prophetic announcement of Isaiah himself, whose name pointed to salvation, was to allure him to Jehovah with its promising tone.

Isa 7:4 No means were left untried. “And say unto him, Take heed, and keep quiet; and let not thy heart become soft from these two smoking firebrand-stumps: at the fierce anger of Rezin, and Aram, and the son of Remaliah. ” The imperative השּׁמר (not pointed השּׁמר, as is the case when it is to be connected more closely with what follows, and taken in the sense of cave ne , or even cave ut ) warned the king against acting for himself, in estrangement from God; and the imperative hashkēt exhorted him to courageous calmness, secured by confidence in God; or, as Calvin expresses it, exhorted him “to restrain himself outwardly, and keep his mind calm within.

” The explanation given by Jewish expositors to the word hisshamēr , viz. , conside super faeces tuas (Luzzatto: vivi riposato ), according to Jer 48:11; Zep 1:12, yields a sense which hardly suits the exhortation. The object of terror, at which and before which the king’s heart was not to despair, is introduced first of all with Min and then with Beth , as in Jer 51:46.

The two allies are designated at once as what they were in the sight of God, who sees through the true nature and future condition. They were two tails, i. e. , nothing but the fag-ends, of wooden pokers ( lit . stirrers, i. e. , fire-stirrers), which would not blaze any more, but only continue smoking. They would burn and light no more, though their smoke might make the eyes smart still.

Along with Rezin, and to avoid honouring him with the title of king, Aram (Syria) is especially mentioned; whilst Pekah is called Ben-Remaliah, to recall to mind his low birth, and the absence of any promise in the case of his house. The ya‛an 'asher (“ because ”) which follows (as in Eze 12:12) does not belong to Isa 7:4 (as might appear from the sethume that comes afterwards), in the sense of “do not be afraid because,” etc.

, but is to be understood as introducing the reason for the judicial sentence in Isa 7:7.