Annotations Upon Isaiah, Chapter 7
CHAP. VII.
Verſ. 1. ANd it came to paſs in the days of Ahaz the ſon of Jotham, the ſon of Uzziah, &c.] See the Note, Chap. 6.1. This Ahaz (whoſe father and grandfather Jotham and Uzziah are here mentioned, becauſe under theſe, and theſe only Iſaiah had hitherto Propheſied) was one of the moſt wicked Kings of Judah; yet in his reign the Prophet Iſaiah was ſent with many comfortable Propheſies to him, and to the people, for the ſupport and eneouragement of the faithful (as we may well think) in thoſe evil times; amongſt which this is one which is here related; the occaſion whereof is ſaid to be, that Rezin King of Syria, and Pekah the ſon of Remaliah, King of Iſrael, (Nations that were uſually at great enmity one againſt another) went up towards Jeruſalem to war againſt it; for being encouraged by the ſucceſsful invaſions they had already made upon the land of Judah, each of them ſeverally by their own forces, wherein they had ſlain many of their great ones that were a chief ſtay and ſupport of their State, and huge multitudes of the flower of the people beſides, they aſſured themſelves, that if they now joined their forces together, they ſhould eaſily ſubdue this diſheartened broken people, and thereupon reſolved to go up together and beſiege Jeruſalem; which accordingly they did, chuckering themſelves no doubt with hope of a full conqueſt, and the huge ſpoil they ſhould carry away from Jeruſalem; (concerning all which ſee the Notes, 2 King. 16.5.) but could not prevail againſt it; which is premiſed before-hand, to hint how cauſleſs thoſe their fears were, which are here afterward related, and how baſe their incredulity was, and neglect of God.
Ver. 2. And it was told the houſe of David, ſaying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim, &c. That is, tidings were brought to the Court of Judah, to Ahaz the King, who was of the lineage of David, and to the other Princes and Officers of his Court and State, that the Syrians and the Iſraelites of the Ten Tribes, who are here called Ephraim, (for which ſee the Note, Pſal. 78.9.) had made a confederacy together againſt Jeruſalem. But why is this expreſſed thus, that it was told the houſe of David, and not that tidings were brought to Ahaz, or to the Houſe or Court of Ahaz? I anſwer, that probably we may think it was, either 1. To hint the reaſon why this confederacy againſt Ahaz ſhould come to nothing, namely, becauſe he was the lawful heir of the Crown, being deſcended from David, and God would make good his promiſe to David concerning the perpetuity of his Kingdom, ſee the Note, 2 Sam. 7.16. Or elſe, (as ſome think) to imply how far Ahaz was degenerated from the courage of David, and other his holy anceſtors, as was diſcovered in that baſe fear of his at this time, which is related in the following words, and his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind; that is, as the leaves of trees will quiver and ſhake with the firſt breathing of the wind, when a tempeſt is riſing, ſo did their hearts tremble and ſhake (as we uſe to ſay, like an aſpin leaf), at the firſt breath of that report that was brought to them, concerning the preparations that were made againſt them by theſe two Kings; all which is expreſſed, to ſhew that the deliverance of this people at this time was only of God, or to ſet forth the wonder of the deliverance, where both Princes and people were ſo faint-hearted that they were no way able to make any reſiſtance againſt the mighty forces that were breaking in upon them.
Ver. 3. Then ſaid the Lord unto Iſaiah, &c.] Though Ahaz ſought not to God or his Prophets for help or counſel, yet he ſent his Prophet to him, with a meſſage that he would deliver him and his people from the danger they were in, 1. To magnifie the riches of his long-ſuffering and mercy towards the worſt of men. 2. To render Ahab and his people the more inexcuſable. And, 3. for the ſupport and comfort of the faithful that were amongſt them. Go forth now, to wit, out of the city, as appears by that which follows, to meet Ahaz; he was ſent to Ahaz, both in regard of the greatneſs of his terrors, and in regard the care of providing for the publick ſafety lay chiefly upon him. Nor was he to ſtay till the King came back to the City, but to go forth to meet him, both to expreſs that reſpect and reverence which was due to him as King, and becauſe this was ſuitable for him that had ſuch good tidings to carry to the King. And as for that command that is given the Prophet for carrying his Son along with him, Go forth now to meet Ahaz, thou and Shear-jaſhab thy Son, we muſt know, 1. That Shear-jaſhab is, being interpreted, the remnant ſhall return. 2. That this name had been before given to this Son of the Prophet, either by the expreſs command of God, or by the ſecret inſtinct of Gods Spirit, purpoſely as a ſign, either, 1. of a remnant that ſhould return from the Babylonian captivity, which the Prophets did often foretell. (See the Notes before, Chap. 6.13.) Or, 2. of a remnant that ſhould repent and return unto God, from whom they had departed, after Sennacheribs army was deſtroyed before Jeruſalem, according to that expreſs place, Chap. 10.21. The remnant ſhall return, even the remnant of Jacob, unto the mighty God, for which ſee the Note there. And indeed many of thoſe that returned out of Babylon, were ſuch as had been purged and reformed by their afflictions, and brought home unto God. See the Notes, Chap. 4.2, 3. & 6.13. And 3ly, that the Prophet was enjoined to take this his Son Shear-jaſhab along with him, that he might ſtand by as a viſible ſign of the deliverance now promiſed, and of the ground of it, to wit, Gods purpoſe ſtill to preſerve a remnant in this people, that, ſhould be as a holy ſeed for the perpetuating of the Church in future times. See the Notes, Chap. 1.9. & 6.13. and upon the 15 and 16 verſes of this Chapter. And hence it ſeems probable, that the reaſon why this name Shear-jaſhab was given to this Prophets Son, was commonly known; for elſe his going along with his father to the King would have been to no purpoſe at all. And then for the place whither the Prophet is ſent to meet Ahaz, at the end of the conduit of the upper pool in the high-way (or, cauſey-way) of the fullers field; this is thus particularly expreſſed both to clear the certainty of the ſtory, and to aſſure the Prophet of the certainty of this Prophecy. We read of two Pools that were in Jeruſalem, the one called the lower Pool, we find mentioned, Chap. 22.9. Ye gathered together the waters of the lower pool, becauſe it lay on the weſt-ſide of the lower City; and another called the upper pool, made for the receiving and retaining of the waters that came from the fountain of Gihon, and ſituate on the ſouth-ſide of the upper City, the ſame as ſome think, that is elſe-where called the pool of Sil…ah, Joh. 9.8. and which is ſaid to have been nigh to the Kings garden, Neh. 3.15. And this is that Pool which is here meant; from whence (it ſeems) there was a fair way that led to the fullers field, (which no doubt they had choſen, becauſe the waters of this Pool lay conveniently for the waſhing and whiting of their linnen) and here it was that the Prophet was directed to meet with Ahaz; and obſervable it is, that it was the very ſame place where afterwards Sennachenibs Captains that were ſent by him to beſiege Jeruſalem, made a ſtand, and ſummoned Hezekiah to deliver up the City; for ſo it is ſaid, 2 King. 18.17. They came and ſtood by the conduit of the upper pool, which is in the high-way of the fullers field. What the cauſe was of Ahaz his being in this place, is not expreſſed. Some think that hearing of theſe ſad tidings in ſome place, whither he had removed his Court out of the City, he was now coming to ſhelter and ſecure himſelf in this his chief City; and ſo the Prophet was ſent forth to meet him there, and to comfort him with a promiſe from God concerning the deliverance of Jeruſalem, that he might not farther diſhearten the people by coming in ſuch a fright into the City. But then again others conceive, that he was gone thither, or come thither from ſome place abroad, that he might conſult about the fortifying of that place, either becauſe they feared it might be a place of advantage for the enemy whereby to enter the City, or becauſe it was a matter of ſo great conſequence to ſecure the waters of this Pool for the uſe of the City when it ſhould be beſieged, and ſo the Prophet was ſent thither, as it were, to tell them in the midſt of theſe their conſultations, that the Lord whom they minded not, would be inſtead of fortifications to the City, and would ſecure it from the enemy, though they were not able to do it. And this indeed ſeems moſt probable, becauſe Rabſhakeh, when he went to beſiege Jeruſalem, did make his firſt approaches to the City at this place, 2 King. 18.17. and at that time Hezekiah had taken all the care he could to ſecure theſe waters, 2 Chron. 32.3, 4.
Ver. 4. And ſay unto him, take heed and be quiet, &c.] That is, take heed of being thus unquiet and reſtleſs in thy mind as thou art; beware of all diſtruſt, and diſtruſtful fears; be not diſturbed and diſtracted, but be of a quiet compoſed mind, truſting in God; look not after help from the Aſſyrian, or any other foreign aid, but rely wholly upon Gods protection, and his bleſſing upon thine own forces. And this laſt we may the more probably think was here intended, becauſe it is expreſly ſaid, 2 King. 16.7. that Ahaz did immediately after the invaſion of theſe two Kings, ſend to Tiglath-pileſer King of Aſſyria for aid, and therefore it may well be that he had this already in his thoughts, Fear not, neither be faint-hearted (it is in the Hebrew, Let not thine heart be tender, that is, ſoft and apt to take an impreſſion of fear) for the two tails of theſe ſmoking fire-brands; ſo he calls theſe two Kings and their forces, of whom Ahaz and his people were ſo exceedingly afraid, by way of contempt and ſcorn. He terms them fire-brands, becauſe indeed they were coming out againſt him with ſuch fury and ſeeming terror, as if they meant to ſet all the land on a light flame, and with fire and ſword to conſume all before them. But withal he calls them only tails of fire-brands; which might well be both with reſpect to what had formerly befallen theſe Kings (for indeed their power had been of late already much waſted, the Syrians by three great victories which Joaſh the King of Iſrael obtained over them, 2 King. 13.25. and the Iſraelites by their own Civil Wars and Conſpiracies, 2 King. 15.10) and likewiſe with reſpect to the approaching ruin of both their Kingdoms; for it was not long e're Pekah was ſlain by Hoſhea, 2 King. 15.30. and both the Kingdoms of Syria and Iſrael were utterly deſtroyed by the Aſſyrians, ſo that in this regard they might well be compared to the ends or tails of two fire-brands, their dominion and tyranny not being like to laſt long. Yea, he terms them not burning, but ſmoaking fire-brands, and that to imply, that though they might be a great vexation to them (as ſmoke is to the eyes), and a great terror and affrightment, yet there ſhould be more pride and terror in them, than ſtrength and power for the effecting of the miſchief they intended; which yet muſt be underſtood with reſpect to their great deſign of taking Jeruſalem, and the utter ſubverting of the Kingdom of Judah; for otherwiſe we find, that when they raiſed the ſiege of Jeruſalem, and went away, the Syrians did make much ſpoil in other parts of the land. And to the ſame purpoſe is the following Clauſe, where he calls Pekah (by way alſo of contempt, becauſe his father was an obſcure private perſon) the ſon of Remaliah; for the fierce anger of Rezin, with Syria, and of the ſon of Remaliah.
Ver. 5. Becauſe Syria, Ephraim, and the ſon of Remaliah, &c.] Even this alſo is ſpoken by way of contempt: He vouchſafes not ſo much as to name theſe two Kings, by the report of whoſe confederacy they were ſo exceedingly terrified, but terms them the Syrian, and the ſon of Remaliah (See the foregoing Note) have taken evil counſel againſt thee, that is, moſt unjuſt, wicked and miſchievous counſel, tending to the utter ruin of Gods people, and the utter extirpation of the Kingdom of Judah, the race and Royal power of Davids family; which is the rather mentioned (together with that confident reſolution of theirs related in the following verſe), becauſe all this tended the more to ſet forth their great danger, and ſo the mercy of the now promiſed deliverance.
Ver. 6. Let us go up againſt Judah, &c.] That is, againſt the Land or Kingdom of Judah. And vex it, to wit, by invading and ſpoiling the land, and by beſieging their chief City, Jeruſalem. And let us make a breach therein for us, that is, let us violently break in upon it, or thorough it, and ſurprize it, and make it ours. Yet ſome think, that becauſe the great deſign which they had in their thoughts, was the beſieging of Jeruſalem, therefore the breach here intended was the making a breach in the walls thereof, at which they might enter and take the City; and others underſtand it of making a breach or diviſion amongſt the inhabitants of the land or City; that being likely to tend much to their advantage; and others of dividing the land betwixt them, each of them taking that part which lay moſt convenient for them. But the firſt Expoſition I conceive is the beſt, and moſt agreeable to that which follows, Let us make a breach therein for us, and ſet a King in the midſt of it, even the ſon of Tabeal; for this man they intended doubtleſs to ſet up as a Viceroy, or a Tributary-King over the land, and one that ſhould hold the Kingdom of them, and be wholly at their diſpoſing. But now who this ſon of Tabeal was, is altogether uncertain; that which is ſaid by ſome of his being a Syrian, and by others of being ſome eminent man of the Iſraelites, that was a known enemy to the houſe of David, are but meer conjectures. But ſee the foregoing Note.
Ver. 7. Thus ſaith the Lord God, It ſhall not ſtand, neither ſhall it come to paſs.] That is, Though they have with ſuch proud and bold confidence reſolved before hand, that they will thus diſpoſe the Kingdom of Judah, and ſubject it to themſelves, yet this which they have thus determined ſhall not take effect and be eſtabliſhed, as they have determined it ſhall be. So far ſhall they be from making the Kingdom of Judah theirs, as they have reſolved, that they ſhall not be able to effect that which they have determined concerning their taking of the City Jeruſalem; all they attempt herein, ſhall come to nothing.
Ver. 8. For the head of Syria is Damaſcus, and the head of Damaſcus is Rezin.] As if he had ſaid, Damaſcus is the Metropolis or head-city of Syria, and Rezin is the King and Head of Damaſcus; theſe are the bounds which God hath ſet them, and beyond theſe bounds they ſhall not extend their power. The deſign they have in hand for the enlarging of their Dominions ſhall not proſper. Neither ſhall Damaſcus become the head of Judea, by having dominion over that land; nor ſhall Rezin become King of Jeruſalem, as he makes account to be; but Judah and Jeruſalem ſhall continue under the Government under which God hath ſet them. And indeed moſt fully was this made good within a ſhort time, when the Aſſyrian, called into the help of Ahaz, took Damaſcus, and carried the people of it captive to Kir, and ſlew Rezin, 2 King. 16.9.
And within threeſcore and five years ſhall Ephraim be broken; that it be not a people.] That is, And the people of Ephraim, the Kingdom of the Ten Tribes, ſhall be within threeſcore and five years ſo broken in pieces, notwithſtanding their great confidence in their preſent confederacy with Rezin, and his Syrians, that they ſhall no longer be a people, that is, a diſtinct State and people, living apart by themſelves, in their own land, and under their own Laws and Princes, and Government. But now the great queſtion is, how theſe threeſcore and five years muſt be reckoned, after which the Iſraelites were to ceaſe to be a people; and that becauſe the taking of Samaria by Shalmaneſer King of Aſſyria, and his carrying away of the Ten Tribes out of their native Country into his own dominions, was in the ninth year of Hoſhea, which was the ſixth of Hezekiah. See the Notes, 2 King. 17.5, 6. Now if we account from the beginning of Ahaz his reign to that Captivity of the Iſraelites, that makes in all but two and twenty years; for Ahaz reigned in all but ſixteen years, 2 King. 16.2. to which adding the ſix years of Hezekiah his ſon (in whoſe ſixth year this great calamity befell the Ten Tribes) the whole amounts (I ſay) to no more than two and twenty years. And yet becauſe the Kings of Syria and Iſrael had before this ſeverally invaded the land of Judah in Ahaz his time (as is noted before, ver. 1.) therefore it is moſt probable that Iſaiah Propheſied this in the third year of Ahaz; and then from thence to Shalmaneſers carrying away the Iſraelites captive, there could be no more than about twenty years. The moſt ordinary anſwer that is given by Expoſitors for the reſolving of this hard queſtion is, that theſe threeſcore and five years are to be numbred, not from the time when Iſaiah ſpake theſe words, but from the time when the Prophet Amos did firſt foretell this utter deſtruction of the land and people of Iſrael, which that he did very expreſly is evident in many places of his Propheſie. And indeed it is clear that Amos began to Prophecy two years before the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah, Amos 1.1. (of which there is alſo mention made, Zach. 14.5. Ye ſhall flee like as ye fled from before the Earthquake in the days of Uzziah.) Now if this Earthquake was in the ſeven and twentieth year of Uzziah's reign, as the Jewiſh Writers affirm it was, juſt about the time when Uzziah was ſmitten with a leproſie; then it follows that Amos began to Prophecy in the five and twentieth year of Uzziah; from whence if we begin the account of the time prefixed by Amos for the utter ruin of Iſrael, there will be ſeven and twenty years left behind of the reign of Uzziah (for he reigned in all two and fifty years, 2 King. 15.2.) To which if we add the ſixteen years of his Son Jothams reign, 2 King. 15.33. and the ſixteen of Ahaz, 2 King. 16.2. and ſix of Hezekiah (in the ſixth year of whoſe reign Samaria was taken by the Aſſyrians, 2 King. 18.10.) theſe make in all juſt threeſcore and five years. Yea, and the ſame account of years they make up alſo by reckoning the years of the Kings of Iſrael; for Amos, they ſay, began to Prophecy in the ſeventeenth year of Jeroboam the ſecond, who reigned in all forty and one years, 2 King. 14.23. and if ſo, then he reigned four and twenty years after Amos Propheſied the Captivity of Iſrael; to which adding the ten years of Menahems reign, 2 King. 15.17. (not accounting the ſhort reigns of Zachariah and Shallum, which made up together but ſeven months) and the two years of Pekahiah, 2 King. 15.23. and the twenty years of Pekah, 2 King. 15.27. and the nine years of Hoſhea, in whoſe ninth year Samaria was taken by the Aſſyrians, 2 King. 17.6. this alſo makes juſt threeſcore and five years.
And whereas it may ſeem ſtrange that Iſaiah ſhould ſpeak of the deſtruction of the Iſraelites after threeſcore and five years, only becauſe Amos Propheſied of their deſtruction ſo many years before it came to paſs; to this it is anſwered, that Amos did not only foretel this ruin that ſhould come upon the Kingdom and people of the Ten Tribes, but did alſo prefix the time when it ſhould be, namely after threeſcore and five years, which hereupon paſſing by tradition from one to another, was common in mens mouths, and was often mentioned by the ſucceeding Prophets, as the period appointed by God to the Kingdom of Iſrael, and that ſo it is mentioned here by the Prophet Iſaiah, as if he had ſaid, that within that threeſcore and five years, which were ſo long ſince foretold, and were ſo commonly ſpoken of, Ephraim ſhould be ſo broken that they ſhould no longer be a people. And indeed could this be made out, a very obſervable aggravation this would have been of Pekah, and his Iſraelites bold prophaneneſs and contempt of Gods Prophets, that after ſo fair a warning given ſo long before, wherein the time was expreſly mentioned when they ſhould ceaſe to be a people, they ſhould be ſo far from fearing the threatned ruin, that they ſhould with ſo much confidence undertake a deſign for the ſwallowing up of the Kingdom of Judah. But the truth is, that this computation of the threeſcore and five years here mentioned, is built upon meer uncertain conjectures: as, 1. That Amos did foretel that the Iſraelites ſhould be carried away captives within threeſcore and five years, of which there is no mention at all in his Prophecy. And, 2. that the great Earthquake, two years before which Amos begun to Prophecy, was in the ſeven and twentieth year of Uzziahs reign, which can be no way made out from the Scripture. Or, 3ly, that this was juſt at the time when Uzziah was ſmitten with a leproſie. And, 4. that Amos began to Prophecy in the ſeventeenth year of Jerobeam the ſecond. And indeed neither of theſe two laſt aſſertions can agree with the Chronology of the Scripture. For, 1. if Uzziah reigned but five and twenty (or ſeven and twenty) years, after he was ſmitten with leproſie, then was Jotham his ſon born about the time when he was ſo ſmitten (for he was five and twenty years when his father died, 2 King. 15.32, 33.) and how could that be, ſeeing it is expreſly ſaid, that Uzziah being upon this occaſion ſequeſtred from the Government, Jotham the Kings ſon was over the houſe, judging the people of the land. See the Note, 2 King. 15.5. And for the ſecond, of Amos beginning to Prophecy in the ſeventeenth year of Jeroboam the ſecond, if Uzziah began to reign in the ſeven and twentieth year of Jeroboam, as it is ſaid, 2 King. 15.11. then by that acccount Amos ſhould have begun to Prophecy ten years before Uzziah began to reign, which is contrary to what is expreſly ſaid, Amos 1.1. whereby it is apparent that this way of accounting theſe ſixty and five years, cannot be juſtified. There is therefore another anſwer given by others to this great queſtion, which is, that this breaking of the Iſraelites, whereof the Prophet here ſpeaks, was not that when the main body of the Iſraelites were carried away captives by Shalmaneſer, in the ninth year of Hoſhea, 2 King. 17.6. which was indeed but two and twenty years after this Prophecy of Iſaiah (for there were then many of the Iſraelites left behind in the land of Iſrael, who continued ſtill to be a people by themſelves, though very much weakened and broken) but that when Ezar-hadden, the ſon of Shalmaneſer, 2 King. 19.37. did ſweep away all thoſe whom his father had left behind, and carried them away captives into his own Countries, placing a fuller Colony of other Nations in their room. See Ezra 4.2. at which time they were indeed utterly broken from being a people. Now that this was threeſcore and five years after this Prophecy of Iſaiah they make out thus. Taking it for granted that Iſaiah Prophecyed this about the third year of Ahaz, there were thirteen years after this of Ahaz his reign, 2 King 10.2. to which if we add the twenty and nine years of Hezekiahs reign, 2 King. 18.2. then if the remainder of the Iſraelites were carried away by Ezar-b…don in the three and twentieth year of Manaſſeh (as it may be probably thought, becauſe about that time the Aſſyrians did invade the land of Iſrael, and carried away Manaſſeh himſelf captive into Babylon, 2 Chron. 33.11.) this makes up juſt threeſcore and five years. And indeed this computation of theſe years, and expoſition of this place, is by lateſt Expoſitors beſt approved.
Ver. 9. And the head of Ephraim is Samaria, and the head of Samaria is Remaliahs ſon.] This muſt be underſtood, as the like expreſſion was in the foregoing verſe concerning Damaſcus and Rezin; to wit, that Samaria (concerning which ſee the Note, 1 King. 16.24.) was the head-city of the kingdom of Iſrael, but ſhould never come to be the Metropolis of Judea, and that Pekah was the King of Samaria, but ſhould never be the King of Jeruſalem, or have power to diſpoſe of the Kingdom of Judea, as they had deſigned. Yet by ſubjoining this to that which was ſaid immediately before in the cloſe of the foregoing verſe concerning the deſtruction of the Iſraelites, it may ſeem to imply, that Samaria and Pekah, Remaliahs ſon, ſhould be ſo far from having any dominion over Jeruſalem, that they both ſhould, together with the people of Iſrael, be ruined and deſtroyed, which indeed came accordingly to paſs; for within a year, or there-about, Pekah was ſlain by Hoſhea. See the Note, 2 King. 15.30. and in Hoſhea's reign Samaria was taken by the Aſſyrians, 2 King. 18.9, 10.
If ye will not believe, &c.] Some read it, as it is in the Margent, Do ye not believe? It is becauſe ye are not ſtable, to wit, in the faith, or in the Covenant, whereof you make profeſſion, in that you profeſs your ſelves to be Gods peculiar people. As if he had ſaid, If you believe not this promiſe concerning your deliverance from theſe two Kings that have conſpired againſt you, and thereupon will ſeek to ſecure your ſelves elſewhere, by ſending to the Aſſyrian for help (as it is clear Ahaz at this time did, 2 King. 16.7.) this is becauſe you are not ſtedfaſt and ſtable in reſting and relying upon God, as you ought to do, and ſo are over-born with theſe diſtruſtful fears. You have caſt off God, and ſo do not put confidence in his help, and this is the reaſon why you regard not this promiſe. But I conceive the words are beſt tranſlated as they are in our Bibles, If ye will not believe, ſurely ye ſhall not be eſtabliſhed; that is, If you will not give credit to this meſſage which I have brought you, and rely upon this deliverance, which from God I have promiſed you, you ſhall never be ſetled in your minds againſt theſe terrors and fears, or rather you ſhall not proſper in any deſign you take in hand for the ſecuring and eſtabliſhing of your ſelves; you ſhall not be ſetled in your preſent ſtate and condition, but ſhall e're long be ruined and deſtroyed. It ſeems the Prophet perceived Ahaz, and his Nobles, and ſervants with him, ſtill to continue in great perplexity and fear, and thereupon he added theſe words, If ye will n…t believe, ſur…ly ye ſhall not be eſtabliſhed; which are fully to the ſame effect with that which Jehoſhaphat ſaid to the people, 2 Chron. 20.20. Believe in the Lord your God, ſo ſhall you be eſtabliſhed; believe his Prophets, ſo ſhall ye proſper.
Ver. 10. Moreover the Lord ſpake again unto Ahaz, ſaying.] To wit, by the Prophet Iſaiah; who, when he ſaw that Ahaz anſwered nothing, as not regarding the promiſe he had made him, and that he and thoſe that were him, were ſtill in as great an afrightment as they were, he thereupon no doubt by the ſpecial guidance of Gods Spirit, takes occaſion to add that which follows.
Ver. 11. Ask thee a ſign, &c.] As if he had ſaid, I perceive thou believeſt not that which I have ſaid to thee, concerning the deliverance of Jeruſalem from theſe two Kings that are combined againſt it; but that thou mayeſt know that I have ſpoken nothing without a Commiſſion from God, ask thee a ſign of the Lord thy God; that is, I leave it to thy free choice for thy farther ſatisfaction, to demand any thing to be done, which thou knoweſt none but God Almighty can do, as a ſign to bear witneſs to the truth of that which I have ſpoken, and it ſhall be done for thee; ask it, either in the depth, or in the height above; that is, either on the earth beneath, or in the Heaven above. And obſervable it is, that in proffering this to Ahaz, he added thoſe words (thy God), Ask thee a ſign of the Lord thy God, that is, who by external Covenant is the only God of Iſrael, and whom thou doſt indeed profeſs to be thy God; for he did hereby covertly tax him for his Apoſtacy to his Idol-gods. But indeed that which is moſt conſiderable is, 1. The wonderful indulgence of God to this wicked wretch, in making him ſuch a proffer for the ſtrengthening of his faith, (concerning which ſee the foregoing Note, ver. 3.) And, 2. how clearly the Prophet did hereby diſcover that he ſpake nothing to him, but by ſure and unqueſtionable warrant from God Almighty.
Ver. 12. But Ahaz ſaid, I will not ask, neither will I tempt the Lord.] Some take this as ſpoken by way of indignation; as if Ahaz had ſaid, I do not believe the promiſe which you have made me, as you pretend from God; nor will I be ſo fooliſh as to rely upon any ſuch promiſe in ſo great a danger as this is; but am reſolved to provide for my ſafety, and the ſafety of my Kingdom and people ſome other way, and therefore I will not make any trial what God will do, by asking any ſuch ſign, as you adviſe me to ask. To what end ſhould I do ſo, being reſolved not to rely on God, or any miracle that can be wrought? And indeed it is clear, that at this time he was contriving to call in the King of Aſſyria to his help. See the Note, 2 King. 16.7. But we do not uſually call this making a trial whether God will work ſuch a wonder, a tempting of God; and it is hardly to be thought that Ahaz would ſo openly renounce God. Others therefore do better underſtand it, as a refuſal to ask any ſign, either one or other, under a pretence that he was content and ſatisfied with the promiſe which God had made, and was afraid to ſin by tempting God, (concerning which ſee the Notes, Deut. 6.16. & Exod. 17.2.) whereby he did covertly alſo caſt an imputation upon the Prophet, in that he had adviſed him to do that which was contrary to Gods expreſs command. But yet doubtleſs he did but hypocritically make this a pretence; and the true reaſon why he refuſed the ſign proffered him, was not any religious fear of offending God, but becauſe he believed not the Prophet, and was however determined to ſeek help elſewhere. Or perhaps, becauſe he was not willing that God and the true Religion ſhould be honoured (to the reproach of his Idol-gods) by any ſuch miracle, if it ſhould come to paſs as the Prophet had promiſed; or elſe meerly becauſe he would to the Prophet in this his danger make a ſhew of fearing God; whereby he did only add to his ſin, ſeeking hypocritically to cover his diſobedience and ingratitude, by pretending that which was not in his heart.
Ver. 13. And he ſaid, Hear ye now, O houſe of David, &c.] See the Note above, ver. 2. By this Preface the Prophet rouzeth up Ahaz and all that were with him, ſeriouſly to weigh the weightineſs of that which he intended now to ſay to them. But withal by terming them the houſe of David, he did covertly upbraid them for their being ſo far degenerated as they were, from the faith and piety of him, of whoſe family they boaſted themſelves to be: Is it a ſmall thing for you to weary men? but will you weary my God alſo? that is, Is it not enough for you that you vex and diſquiet men, to wit, the people of God in general, by your oppreſſions and perſecutions; or rather more particularly me and other the Prophets of God, by ſlighting what we ſay, by injuring and perſecuting us as poor contemptible men, but that you will needs alſo vex and diſquiet God, to wit, by deſpiſing the grace proffered in the ſign tendered you, whereby he intended to glorifie himſelf (and that the more wickedly too by doing it under a pretence of piety), and ſo conſequently by diſtruſting whether God will do, or be able to do what he hath proſſered and promiſed to do? Some underſtand theſe words as only implying this aggravation of their ſin in deſpiſing the ſign tendered them by the Prophet, to wit, that the diſhonour herein caſt upon the Prophet, redounded to the diſhonour and reproach of God himſelf, whoſe ſervant he was; for which ſee the Note, Numb. 16.11. But I rather think that this is not ſpoken of their deſpiſing God by deſpiſing his ſervant the Prophet, but of an affront offered immediately to God himſelf (above that which was offered him in his ſervant the Prophet), to wit, that they reſolved not to reſt upon Gods help, but to ſeek to ſecure themſelves by craving aid from the Aſſyrians. But however obſervable it is, that in preſſing this, he uſeth that expreſſion of my God, Will ye weary my God alſo? for hereby he implied that he had ſpoken nothing but as Gods meſſenger or Miniſter, and by commiſſion from him, and that it was upon account of that ſpecial relation which he had to God, that he was ſo tenderly ſenſible of the great wrong they had now done to him.
Ver. 14. Therefore the Lord himſelf ſhall give you a ſign, &c.] That is, ſeeing you deſpiſe, or becauſe you deſpiſe and reject this great mercy and grace which God was pleaſed to tender you, of giving you whatever ſign you would ask, for the confirming of the promiſe he had made you, therefore the Lord himſelf will of his own accord, notwithſtanding this your infidelity and contempt, and without your will or deſire, give you a ſign (ſee the foregoing Note, ver. 3.) and that indeed far more ſtrange, wonderful and miraculous than any you could have asked, Behold a Virgin ſhall conceive and bear a Son; which doubtleſs was meant of our Saviour Jeſus Chriſt, as is clearly affirmed by the Evangeliſt St. Matthew, Chap. 1.22, 23. where having related how the Angel made known to Joſeph, that the Virgin Mary his eſpouſed Wife was conceived with child by the Holy Ghoſt, and ſhould bring forth a Son, whoſe name ſhould be Jeſus, he adds, Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was ſpoken of the Lord by the Prophet, ſaying, Behold a Virgin ſhall be with child, and ſhall bring forth a Son, and they ſhall call (or, his name ſhall be called) Emmanuel; which no way differs from that which is ſaid here, that he ſhould be called ſo by his Virgin-mother, Behold, a Virgin ſhall conceive and bear a Son, and ſhall call his name Immanuel. Or, Thou, O Virgin, ſhall call his name Immanuel. For the Prophets meaning was not, that this name ſhould be given unto Chriſt, either by his Mother, or any body elſe, as a name whereby he ſhould be ordinarily called, (for at his Circumciſion by the foreappointment of the Angel, his name was called Jeſus, Luk. 2.21.) but that he ſhould be, and ſhould both by his Mother and others be owned to be Immanuel, that is, God with us, Mat. 1.23. and that not only becauſe he was both God and Man, the Godhead and Manhood being in him Perſonally united together, according to that of the Apoſtle, Col. 2.9. In him dwelleth all the fulneſs of the Godhead bodily; but alſo becauſe by him there was a perfect reconcilement made between God and us, 2 Cor. 5.19. And indeed frequently in the Scripture it is ſaid of Perſons and places, that they ſhould be called by ſuch or ſuch a name, when the meaning is not, that men in ſpeaking to them, or of them, ſhould give them that name, but only that that which was ſignified by thoſe names, ſhould be in them ſo exactly accompliſhed, that they might be in that regard moſt fitly and deſervedly called by thoſe names. See the Note, Chap. 1.26. ſo we find it ſaid upon this account concerning Solomon, that his name ſhould be Jedidiah, 2 Sam. 12.25. and yet we do not read that he was ever ordinarily called by that name. And the like may be ſaid concerning thoſe names given to Paſhur, Jer. 20.3. and to Jeruſalem, Ezek. 48.35. and to our Saviour himſelf, Chap. 9.6. & Jer. 23.6. And therefore I conceive it is not to be queſtioned but that the ſame is intended here, in ſaying that the Son of the Virgin Mary ſhould be called Immanuel, namely, that he ſhould be true Immanuel, God with us. And yet notwithſtanding I would not deny what I find affirmed by many learned men, that by expreſſing this in thoſe words, that his Virgin-mother ſhould call his name Immanuel, there might be a covert intimation of that great myſtery, that becauſe he had no father upon earth, therefore it is ſaid that he ſhould be ſo called by his Virgin-mother. But now the great queſtion is, How this ſupernatural conception and birth of our Saviour Chriſt, can be fairly maintained to be indeed that ſign which is here foretold by the Prophet? The Jews deny this with much confidence, but with little or no colour of truth: For, 1. whereas they ſay, that the Hebrew word which we tranſlate a Virgin, doth properly ſignifie any young Damſel, Virgin or other, married or unmarried, of this they are not able to give us any one inſtance, where the word is ſo uſed in the whole Scripture. And beſides, what an abſurdity is it to think, that the birth of any child conceived and born in an ordinary way, ſhould be here foretold by the Prophet as ſuch a ſtrange miraculous ſign? And, 2. whereas they affirm, that this Son, whoſe conception and birth is here foretold, was Hezekiah the ſon of Ahaz, (for ſo ſome of them ſay) and that of him it is ſaid that his name ſhould be called Immanuel, becauſe in his days God was with them indeed in an eminent manner, when he delivered them ſo miraculouſly from the mighty army of the Aſſyrians, that had beſieged Jeruſalem; or elſe a Son which the Prophets wife bare him, whoſe name was indeed called Immanuel, as by way of prediction, that God would be with them to deliver them from the intended Invaſion of the Iſraelites, and Syrians; neither of theſe can be maintained with any probability of reaſon. For, 1. If Hezekiah was twenty and five years old when he began to reign, as it is ſaid he was, 2 King. 18.2. then ſixteen years before that, which was in the beginning of his father Ahaz his reign, (for he reigned in all but ſixteen years, 2 King. 16.2.) he muſt needs be about nine years old; and how then could he be the Son, whoſe conception and birth was here foretold to Ahaz? And, 2. for that which they ſay that the Prophets wife had three Sons, who had all names given them by Gods appointment, as by way of Prophetical foretelling things to come, as namely, 1. Shear-jaſhab, mentioned above, ver. 3. And, 2. Maherſhalal-haſh-baz, mentioned, Chap. 8.3. And, 3. This Immanuel of whom the Prophet here ſpeaks; for this laſt, that he was to be conceived and born by the Prophets wife, (beſides that they have no Scripture-warrant for it, but meerly their own conjecture) can no way conſiſt with that which is ſaid, Chap. 8.8. for were this Immanuel to have been of no higher deſcent, why ſhould the Prophet there call the land of Judah his land, in regard of his ſpecial intereſt in it, and dominion over it? and the ſtretching out of his wings ſhall fill the breadth of thy land, O Immanuel. And, 3. however, neither any Son of the King, or of the Prophet, can be that Immanuel that is here foretold, unleſs it can be maintained that his mother was, both before and after his conception and birth, a pure Virgin. The moſt plauſible objection indeed that is made by the Jews againſt this great truth, that this is a Prophecy of the conception and birth of out Saviour Jeſus Chriſt of the Virgin Mary, is this: How that which was to come to paſs ſo many ages after, could be now given as a ſign to thoſe to whom the Prophet here ſpake, to confirm the promiſe made them of the deliverance of them, and the City Jeruſalem from the ſurpriſal of thoſe two potent Kings that were coming againſt them, which the words indeed do plainly import? But to this it may be juſtly anſwered, 1. That ſtrange and wonderful things that are long after to come to paſs, may be foretold as ſigns for the confirming of ſome preſent promiſe given, becauſe the confident prediction of ſuch things may be of force to raiſe mens minds to the more hopeful expectation of that which is at preſent promiſed. Two notable inſtances we have of this, Exod. 3.12. & 2 King. 19.29. concerning which ſee the Notes there. It is indeed no more than as if he had ſaid, You queſtion whether God can effect that deliverance which I have promiſed you; but I will tell you therefore of a greater wonder that God will certainly do, and that is a Virgin ſhall conceive and bring forth a Son, without the knowledg or help of man, by whom there ſhall be a reconciliation made betwixt God and men. 2. That the prediction of the miraculous conception and birth of the Lord Chriſt, their promiſed Meſſiah, was the more proper and ſeaſonable at this time, becauſe the certainty of the accompliſhment of this did imply the unqueſtionable preſervation of Davids Royal family, (from whence this Son of the Virgin was to ſpring), which was the thing that Ahaz now refuſed to believe. If Rezin and Pekah, or any other enemies, ſhould be able to cut off the family of David, what would then become of the promiſe of the Meſſiah, that was to deſcend from that Royal ſtem? By giving him therefore this ſign of the ſupernatural conception and birth of their promiſed Meſſiah, the ſeed of the woman, the Prophet did not only tell him that which was an unqueſtionable ground whereon he might rely, againſt all fear of the ruin of Davids family; but he did alſo diſcover the root of his diſtruſtful fears, namely, that he did not indeed believe that fundamental promiſe concerning the Meſſiah, nor that Covenant of Grace which God had made with his people, which was eſtabliſhed thereon, and that therefore it was no wonder though he were continually ſhaken with ſuch unbelieving fears. 3. That it is uſual with the Prophets upon this ground, when they are ſpeaking of temporal deliverances and mercies promiſed to Gods people, to paſs on a ſudden, as by a Prophetick rapture, to make mention of the Meſſiah, in whom all the promiſes of God are yea and amen, 2 Cor. 1.20. who is therefore the foundation of all the hope and conſolation of Gods people, in regard of any mercy that God hath promiſed them. And, 4. that together with this prediction of the wonder of the conception and birth of their promiſed Meſſiah, there ſeems to be another ſign joined, ver. 16. (concerning which ſee the Note there), both tending to give them aſſurance, that God would be with his people, in delivering them from thoſe two Kings that were coming againſt them, as he had before promiſed them.
Ver. 15. Butter and honey ſhall he eat, &c.] That is, this Immanuel before mentioned, the Son of the bleſſed Virgin Mary, ſhall be fed with butter and honey, ſuch meats as young children do affect, and wherewith in this Country, by reaſon of their plenty, they are uſually much fed. That he may know to refuſe the evil and chuſe the good; that is, that he may grow up till he comes to thoſe years of diſcretion, that he will be able to diſcern between good and evil; to wit, that which is naturally or morally good and evil, and ſo to chuſe that which is deſirable and commendable, and reject that which is hurtful and blame-worthy; which yet muſt be reſtrained to that weaker meaſure of knowledg and diſcretion, which is uſually found in little children, when firſt the exerciſe of their reaſon and underſtanding begins to diſcover it ſelf in them, as we ſee where the ſame phraſe is uſed, Deut. 1.39. Your children which in that day had no knowledg between good and evil, they ſhall go in thither. So that the drift of this verſe is clearly to imply, that the Lord Chriſt, the Son of the Virgin Mary, ſhould be true and very man, nouriſhed and brought up from his infancy as other children are; and that he ſhould be ſubject to the ſame infirmities and weakneſs both of body and mind, that other children are ſubject to; and ſhould therefore grow up in ſtrength and underſtanding by little and little, as other children do, as it is expreſly ſaid that Chriſt did, Luk. 2.52. And Jeſus increaſed in wiſdom and ſtature, and in favour both with God and man. I know there are ſeveral learned men that underſtand this verſe, not of the Son of the Virgin mentioned in the foregoing verſe, but of the Prophets Son Shear-jaſhab, mentioned before ver. 3. and ſo they conceive this is added to confirm the foregoing Prophecy, ver. 7, 8. concerning the deliverance of Jeruſalem, and Davids houſe, from the combined forces of Rezin and Pekah, that were joining together againſt them; as if the Prophet had ſaid, Whereas theſe two Kings have reſolved to beſiege and to take Jeruſalem, ſo far ſhall they be from effecting what they have deſigned, that this my child Shear-jaſhab (whom by Gods command I have brought along with me as a ſign to aſſure you of the mercy promiſed, ſee the Note above, ver. 3.) ſhall be, notwithſtanding this their ſiege, fed and nouriſhed, and brought up as ſafely and tenderly as other young children uſe to be in times of greateſt peace and plenty. But the words, Butter and honey ſhall he eat, &c. do ſo plainly refer to that which went before, ver. 14. Behold a Virgin ſhall conceive and bear a Son, and ſhall call his name Immanuel, that I cannot ſee how it can, without manifeſt wreſting the words, be underſtood of any other than that Immanuel mentioned in the foregoing verſe.
Ver. 16. For before the child ſhall know to refuſe the evil, and chuſe the good, &c.] See the foregoing Note, The land that thou abhorreſt, that is, the land of Iſrael, againſt which thou beareſt ſuch a deadly enmity for the miſchief they have done thee, and the great evil which they are now conſpiring to bring upon thee (or it may be meant both of the land of Iſrael, and the land of Syria, collectively taken) ſhall be forſaken of both her Kings; that is, it ſhall be bereaved of both her Kings, to wit, of Rezin King of Syria, and Pekah King of Iſrael, that were now joined in a ſtrict Confederacy againſt Judah, both of them being cut off and deſtroyed; ſo that the meaning is, that theſe Kings ſhould be ſo far from effecting what they had deſigned, to wit, the ſurpriſal of Jeruſalem, and the cutting off the Royal family of David, that they themſelves ſhould be each of them ſlain and deſtroyed; concerning which ſee the foregoing Notes, ver. 4, 7, 8, 9. But now the great queſtion again is, What child is here meant, concerning which it is ſaid, Before the child ſhall know to refuſe the evil, and chuſe the good, the land that thou abhorreſt ſhall be forſaken of both her Kings? Many learned men that underſtand not only the 14. v. but the 15. alſo, Butter and honey ſhall he eat, &c. of the Lord Chriſt, the Son of the Virgin Mary, do yet underſtand this of any new-born child; as if the Prophet had ſaid, Before the child that is now newly born, or is ſhortly to be born, ſhall grow up to years of diſcretion, both theſe Kings that have now combined againſt thee, ſhall be deſtroyed. Now to prove that theſe words (the child) may be underſtood indefinitely of any child, they alledg another place, Chap. 3.5. where the Prophet uſeth the like indefinite expreſſion, The child ſhall be have himſelf proudly againſt the ancient. And becauſe it may juſtly ſeem ſtrange that the Prophet having ſpoken in the foregoing verſes of the conception and birth, and education of Chriſt; and of the laſt, with the very words here uſed, that he ſhould eat butter and honey, that he may know to refuſe the evil, and chuſe the good, and yet ſhould now preſently ſpeak of any child in general, now newly born, or ſhortly to be born, and that under the ſame expreſſion, For before the child ſhall know to refuſe the evil, and chuſe the good, the land that thou abhorreſt ſhall be forſaken of both her Kings. To this they anſwer, that having in the foregoing verſes grounded the hope of their promiſed deliverance from Rezin and Pekah, upon a promiſe of the ſupernatural conception, and birth, and education of their Meſſiah, that was to ſpring from that Royal family of David, which theſe Kings ſought to deſtroy, he now ſheweth the time when they ſhould be delivered, to wit, very ſhortly, before the child now newly born ſhould grow up to have any uſe of his reaſon and underſtanding. Again others, yea indeed the moſt of our late and beſt Expoſitors underſtand this not of any child in general, but of ſome particular child there preſent, or whoſe mother was preſent; and the moſt pitch upon Shear-jaſhab, mentioned before, ver. 3. And ſo they ſay, that whereas in the foregoing verſes the Prophet had ſpoken of the conception and birth of the Lord Chriſt the Meſſiah, here now he adds that ſign which was before tendered to Ahaz, to aſſure them of their preſent deliverance from the Invaſion of Rezin or Pekah. Becauſe (ſay they) Ahaz might think that they might haply be all deſtroyed before the birth of this Immanuel, which was now given them as a ſign of their approaching deliverance. To prevent this objection of his, the Prophet aſſures him that they ſhould be ſo far from preventing the birth of this their Meſſiah, the Saviour of his Church, long after to be bore, by cutting off the houſe and family of David, the ſtock from whence he was to ſpring, that before the child that was now newly born (ſuppoſe Shear-jaſhab, that was there before him, or any other), ſhould attain to any years of diſcretion, both theſe Kings that were now combined to cut off the Houſe of David, ſhould be deſtroyed; to wit, within three or four years. Which indeed came to paſs accordingly; for Rezin was ſlain by the Aſſyrians that came to help Ahaz, 2 King. 16.9. and Pekah was ſlain not long after by Hoſhea, as is evident, becauſe Pekah began his reign the two and fiftieth, the laſt year of Uzziah, or Azariah, and reigned but twenty years, 2 King. 15.27. and conſidering that ſixteen of theſe twenty years he reigned together with Jotham the Son of Uzziah, it muſt needs be that he was ſlain about the fourth year of Ahaz the Son of Jotham. So that if Shear-jaſhab were at this time one or two years old, it muſt needs be that Rezin and Pekah were ſlain before he attained any great ability of diſcerning between good and evil. And the ſame may be ſaid of any other new-born child, or ſhortly to be born, that ſhould be here particularly intended.
But indeed, 1. Becauſe it may well be thought, that if the Prophet had ſpoken this of Shear-jaſhab, or any other particular child, he would have ſaid, Before (this) child ſhall know to refuſe the evil and chuſe the good, &c.
And, 2ly, becauſe the words do ſo clearly ſeem to have reſpect to that child already ſpoken of in the two foregoing verſes, and more eſpecially to that v. 16. Butter and honey ſhall he eat, that he may know to refuſe the evil and chuſe the good, I cannot but think that this alſo is to be underſtood of the Lord Chriſt, the Son of the Virgin, as well as the two foregoing verſes. The great objection againſt this is, how the Prophet could intend this to comfort Ahaz againſt his fears concerning Rezin and Pekah, if his meaning had been, that before Chriſt, that was to be conceived and born ſo many hundred years after, ſhould be able to diſcern between good and evil, the land which he abhorred ſhould be forſaken of both her Kings. But to this three anſwers are given: firſt, (which indeed ſeems to me of all moſt improbable) that the Prophet doth not ſpeak this of the death of Rezin and Pekah, but of the death of one Obodas, King of Damaſcus, and of Herod King of Samaria, which was not long after the birth of Chriſt. Secondly, that the drift of the Prophet is not to ſhew how ſuddenly, but how certainly Rezin and Pekah ſhould be deſtroyed. As fully reſolved as they were to deſtroy the Houſe of David from whence the promiſed Meſſiah, the true Immanuel, was to ſpring, before this his miraculous conception, and birth, and education, both theſe Kings ſhould be deſtroyed. And thirdly, That the meaning is only this, that within as ſhort a ſpace of time as ſhould be between the birth of this Immanuel, the child Jeſus, and his being grown up to the uſual years of diſcretion, both theſe Kings that were now preparing to make war againſt Ahaz ſhould be cut off and deſtroyed. This I find mentioned by the Dutch Annotations; and it ſeems to me the moſt ſatisfying anſwer.
Ver. 17. The Lord ſhall bring upon thee and upon thy people, &c.] See the Notes, Exod. 32.7. And upon thy fathers houſe; that is, the Royal family of David, and eſpecially his own poſterity, days that have not come, from the day that Ephraim departed from Judah; that is, ſuch ſad and evil times as never befell the Kingdom of Judah ſince the firſt revolt of the Ten Tribes from them in the days of Rehoboam, which is mentioned here as the ſaddeſt blow that ever was given to the Kingdom of Judah, as being indeed a moſt deadly wound to that people, and that which was the original cauſe of all their following wars and miſeries. Even the King of Aſſyria; as if he ſhould have ſaid, And theſe evil days ſhall come upon you by the King of Aſſyria, by whom thou hopeſt to defend thy ſelf againſt theſe two Kings that are combined againſt thee; which I conceive is meant of the ſucceſſive Invaſions of the Kings of Aſſyria, firſt Tiglath-pileſer, who ſorely diſtreſſed Ahaz, 2 Chron. 28.20. 2ly, Sennacherib, who invaded the land of Judah in the days of Hezekiah, and brought them into great ſtraits, 2 King. 19.3. 3ly, Ezar-haddon, whoſe Captains took Manaſſeh and carried him away into captivity, 2 Chron. 33.11. But, 4ly, and eſpecially Nebuchadnezzar King of Babylon, and of Aſſyria too, who utterly ruined the State of Judah, 2 Chron. 36.17. The Prophet having hitherto ſought to appeaſe the fears of Ahaz by aſſuring him of the approaching ruin of Rezin and Pekah, here now he begins to threaten him with far greater evils, which ſhould notwithſtanding come at laſt upon him, his family and people, for his great wickedneſs, and particularly for his contempt of Gods grace at this time, his infidelity, and calling in the King of Aſſyria to his help; telling him, that though God would make good his promiſe for the deliverance of Jeruſalem, and the Houſe of David, from theſe two Kings, yet he ſhould have no great cauſe long to triumph herein, and that becauſe within a while for greater miſeries ſhould befall him and his people, and that by thoſe very … whom he intended to call into his aid. And yet withal this might be foretold too, to fore-arm the faithful, that their hearts might not ſink, when they ſhould ſee ſuch dreadful evils come upon the Nation.
Ver. 18. And it ſhall come to paſs in that day, that the Lord ſhall hiſs, &c.] See the Note, Chap. 5.26. for the fly that is in the utmoſt parts of the rivers of Egypt; whereby ſome underſtand the Egyptians themſelves, (and thoſe too in the fartheſt parts of it) that had their dwelling by thoſe ſeveral water-courſes which were cut out of the river Nilus, for the watering of their land; who they ſay are termed flyes, not only with reſpect to their invading the land of Judah with ſuch huge multitudes of people like ſo many ſwarms of flyes; but alſo with reſpect to the ſituation of their Country, which lying low, full of ponds and ditches, and being withal a very hot Country, was uſually much peſtered with flyes. And indeed we find that the land of Judah was ſorely oppreſſed by Pharoah Necho, King of Egypt, who flew Joſiah their good King, and afterward depoſed his Son Jehoahaz, and carried him priſoner into Egypt, and ſet up his brother in his ſtead, &c. See the Notes, 2 King. 23.29, 33. And again others underſtand thoſe Nations that bordered upon Egypt, either towards the Sea, where Nilus brancheth forth it ſelf into ſeveral Channels, (See Chap. 11.15.) or near the head of Nilus, which at its firſt entrance into Egypt is cut out into many Channels, as namely, the Philiſtines, the Edomites, the Lybians and Ethiopians; which they ſay was accompliſhed when the Edomites and Philiſtines invaded Judah in the days of Ahaz; for which ſee the Note, 2 King. 16.7. Or when the Aſſyrian or Babylonian King did ſubdue the land, becauſe it is moſt probable that he having at that time vanquiſhed Egypt, and all thoſe adjacent parts, did bring with him bands of all theſe Nations that ſerved in his army, for which ſee the Notes, 2 King. 24.2, 7. And then for the following words, And for the Bee that is in the land of Aſſyria; we muſt know that the Aſſyrians, and Chaldeans (who are both here intended, as ſerving both under one King), are compared to Bees, not only with reſpect to their multitudes and fury (for which ſee the Notes, Deut. 1.44. & Pſal. 118.12.) and to Chaldea's abounding with Bees, as being a woody Country, as much as Egypt with flyes, but alſo eſpecially becauſe theſe were far the more dreadful Nations for their military power and diſcipline, and the exceeding great cruelty they ſhould ſhew to the Jews, when they ſubdued their Country. Yea, and ſome think that their arrows, and darts, and javelins, are particularly here intended by the ſtings wherewith the Bee is armed.
Ver. 19. And they ſhall come, and ſhall reſt all of them in the deſolate valleys, and in the holes of the rocks, and upon all thorns, and upon all buſhes.] Or, as it is in the Margent, commendable trees, that is, goodly fair trees. The Prophet proceeds in the foregoing metaphor, ver. 18. And becauſe flyes and gnats do uſually love to be, and are found in greateſt abundance in low moiſt grounds, and to reſt upon trees, and buſhes, and ſhrubs; and becauſe Bees love to harbour and neſtle themſelves in holes and clefts of rocks (ſee the Notes, Deut. 32.19.) therefore in alluſion hereto, he ſaith of the Aſſyrians, that they ſhould reſt in the deſolate vallies, &c. And ſome conceive that thoſe words (all of them) are purpoſely inſerted, And they ſhall come, and ſhall reſt all of them in the deſolate valleys, to imply, that the number of their army ſhould not be diminiſhed by the length of their march, or any diſtreſs that ſhould befall them by the way. See the Note, Chap. 5.27. But however the meaning is, that the Aſſyrians being entered the land, ſhould over-ſpread the whole Country, by reaſon of the multitude of their army, and ſhould ſeize upon and poſſeſs themſelves of all places, high and low, fruitful and barren, eating up and conſuming all they could meet with in every corner of the land, yea in the moſt deſolate and uninhabited places; by reaſon whereof too, there would be no place of ſhelter for the inhabitants; though they ſhould fly to the caves and moſt deſolate vallies to hide themſelves, it would be in vain; for every where they ſhould find the enemy ready to ſurprize them. Some Expoſitors I know there are, that by the deſolate vallies underſtand the Cities in the vallies, which the inhabitants had out of fear forſaken; and by the holes of the rocks, the Cities built on the rocky mountains; and by thorns and buſhes, the villages, wherein the Country-people dwelt. But the foregoing Expoſition is, I conceive, far more clear and eaſie.
Ver. 20. In the ſame day ſhall the Lord ſhave with a razor that is hired, namely, by them beyond the river, &c.] To wit, Euphrates; ſee the Notes, Exod. 23.31. & Pſal. 72.8. by the King of Aſſyria; See the Note above, ver. 17. the head, that is, the King; and the hair of the feet, that is, of the ſecret and lower part of the body, (according to the like expreſſion, Judg. 3.25. for which ſee the Notes there, and 2 King. 18.27. where mens urine is in the Original termed, the water of the feet), meaning the meaner ſort of people; and it ſhall alſo conſume, that is, quite take away the beard; whereby ſome underſtand the ſtrong men in the land, (with reſpect to the beards being a ſign of virility); others the Nobles that uſually are about the King; and others the Prieſts, or the wiſe men and elders of the people. The devaſtation which the Aſſyrians, and the Chaldeans eſpecially, ſhould make in the land of Judea, is here expreſſed by ſhaving with a razor, 1. To imply that theſe enemies ſhould be only as an inſtrument in Gods hand for the executing of his juſt vengeance upon that people, not able to move one jot any farther than God was pleaſed to make uſe of them. 2. To imply the clean riddance they ſhould make in the land, both by cutting off the inhabitants, and the ſeveral ranks of men amongſt them; and likewiſe by their ſtriping them of all the good of the land, every thing that was of any worth or uſe, eſpecially all that was the beauty and glory of the State, and wherein the comelineſs of the land lay. A razor makes quick and clear diſpatch where it comes, taking away all the hair to the very skin, and not leaving any ſtumps behind, as it will be where the hair is cut with ſcizzers. And ſo ſhould the land of Judah on a ſudden be le…t bare and naked by theſe ſhavers the Aſſyrians. 3. To hint the hope that ſhould be ſtill left of this peoples ſprouting forth again in aftertimes, even as the roots of the hair which are not pluckt up in ſhaving, will in time grow forth again. And, 4. perhaps alſo to imply the ſervitude whereinto they ſhould be brought, becauſe ſlaves in thoſe times uſed to be ſhaven, according to that which is ſaid of the Tyrians, with reſpect to Nebuchadnezzars carrying them into captivity, Every head was made bald, Ezek. 29.18. Again, by a razor that is hired, ſome think that nothing elſe is meant but a very ſharp razor, and that becauſe commonly when men hire any thing for their money, they will have the beſt; and others hold that this epethite is uſed to imply what thorough uſe God would make of the Aſſyrians in waſting Judea, and deſtroying the people, (to wit, that they ſhould do it with all poſſible eaſineſs and fury) even as men are wont not to ſpare thoſe things which they hire for their money. But methinks it is moſt clear that the Aſſyrians are here compared to a razor that is hired, either with reſpect to the Lords drawing them on to the invaſion of that wealthy Kingdom with the hope of the great ſpoil they ſhould get there, as elſewhere it is ſaid that God gave the ſpoil of Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar, as his hire for the great ſervice he had done for God in deſtroying Tyrus, Ezek. 29.18, 19. or elſe ſimply with reſpect to that rich preſent, or great ſum of money wherewith Ahaz hired Tiglath-pileſer to come into his aid, 2 King. 16.7, 8. which ſeems the more probable, becauſe then the words imply a ſharp intimation of Ahaz his folly, in that the land it is ſaid ſhould be thus ſhaven with a razor, which himſelf had hired. And if this be ſo, obſervable it is too, that the great deſolation that is here threatned muſt take in all the waſte that was made by the Aſſyrians in that land by Tiglath-pileſer and others, as is noted before, ver. 17. and not be limited only to that utter deſtruction, which was at laſt brought upon them by the Chaldeans; though indeed the utter deſolation here threatned was never conſummated till then, when they were indeed ſhaven from top to toe; whence it is ſaid, Lam. 1.10. The adverſary hath ſpread out his hand upon all her pleaſant things. And Jer. 8.16. They have devoured the land and all that is in it. And Iſa. 39.6. All ſhall be carried to Babylon, nothing ſhall be left.
Ver. 21. And it ſhall come to paſs in that day, &c.] In the remainder of this Chapter the Prophet ſets forth in what a ſad deſolate manner the land of Judea ſhould lye, after the Aſſyrians had made ſuch havock amongſt the inhabitants, partly by ſlaying them, and partly by carrying them into captivity, and after they had ſo extreamly plundered and pillaged the whole Country; and in what a poor condition thoſe ſhould live that were left behind in the land. And it ſhall come to paſs in that day, that a man (that is, any man of thoſe that are left), ſhall nouriſh a young cow, and two ſheep; the meaning is, that there ſhould be only a few here and there left in the land, and that thoſe that were left ſhould live very meanly; they ſhould not then join field to field as formerly; even that man perhaps that had formerly kept great herds of kine and oxen, and flocks of ſheep, ſhould now keep only one young heifer, and two ſheep, the whole ſubſtance he had reſerved to himſelf, and glad he ſhould be of theſe too, to keep him and his alive in that miſerable condition wherein they were leſt. And ſee the Note, 2 King. 25.12.
Ver. 22. And it ſhall come to paſs for the abundance of milk they ſhall give, he ſhall eat butter, &c.] The meaning is, that becauſe there ſhould be ſuch plenty of Paſture, there being ſo few cattel left in the land to eat it up, this one cow and two ſheep, ſhould yield ſtore and plenty of milk; and that becauſe the poor man that kept them ſhould have ſo few in his family; and beſides there ſhould be none in a manner about him to buy it of him, (ſo great ſhould be the deſolation of the land by reaſon of the general depopulation which the Aſſyrians had made therein) they ſhould therefore have not only milk enough and enough, but they ſhould be able alſo to make plenty of Butter, whereon they ſhould feed alſo without ſparing.
For butter and honey ſhall every one eat that is left in the land.] As if he ſhould have ſaid, And indeed this ordinary common Country-fare, milk, and butter, and honey, (to wit, ſuch as was commonly found in the woods), ſhall be the ſole proviſion wherewith that poor remainder of people that are left in the land ſhould ſuſtain themſelves, and that becauſe the land ſhall be ſo waſted that fleſh and corn, and wine and oyl, which were formerly in great plenty amongſt them, ſhould not be then to be had; a juſt puniſhment of their former luxury. Yea, and becauſe it is in the Original, every one that is left in the midſt of the land; ſome would have this to imply, that this ſcarcity and penury ſhould be in the beſt and moſt fruitful parts of the land, becauſe all ſhould lye waſte and deſolate there, as well as in the barren mountains.
Ver. 23. And it ſhall come to paſs in that day, that every place, &c.] In theſe words we have a farther deſcription how waſte and deſolate the land ſhould lye, and ſo alſo a reaſon why every one left in the land ſhould live upon ſuch poor Country-fare, as was ſaid in the foregoing verſe, namely, becauſe the richeſt and moſt pleaſant places in the land ſhould lye deſolate and unfrequented, wholly overgrown with briers and thorns, every place ſhall be where there were a thouſand vines at a thouſand ſilverlings, it ſhall be even for briers and thorns; that is, thoſe places which were formerly eſteemed the moſt fruitful and delightful places in the land, where they had rich corn-grounds, or rather gardens and olive-yards, and vineyards, ſhall then lye like ſo many thickets of briers and thorns for want of Husbandmen to till, and plant, and dreſs them. He inſtanceth therefore in vineyards only, becauſe therein they chiefly delighted; as if he had ſaid, Thoſe places (for inſtance) where they had formerly the goodlieſt and moſt precious vineyards, vineyards planted with the rareſt and choiceſt vines, (a thouſand ſuch vines being worth a thouſand ſilverlings or pieces of ſilver; that is, as moſt interpreters take it, a thouſand ſhekels. See the Note, Cant. 8.11.) ſhall then become very forreſts and deſerts. And thus thoſe ſpiritual briers and thorns which were found in the people, Gods vineyard (ſee the Notes, Chap. 5.6.) were puniſhed with that horrid deſolation, whereto their Country was expoſed.
Ver. 24. With arrows and with bows ſhall men come thither, &c.] That is, If the inhabitants have any occaſion to go into thoſe places where formerly they had ſuch rich vineyards, being now become like ſo many woods and thickets, they muſt go armed with bow and arrows, to wit, to defend themſelves from robbers and wild beaſts, that uſe to lye lurking in ſuch places. And indeed the over-running of the land with wild beaſts, when it ſhould be laid deſolate, is a judgment wherewith Moſes did long before threaten this people, Levit. 26.22. Some, I know, underſtand this of mens going thither with bow and arrows to hunt thoſe wild beaſts, that uſe for covert to haunt ſuch places. But in deſcribing the ſad condition of the land, it ſeems not ſo probable that ſuch a paſſage concerning hunting, which is an exerciſe of pleaſure, ſhould be inſerted; the drift of adding this paſſage is clearly, I conceive, to ſet forth how many years the land ſhould lye thus deſolate, even till the briers in ſuch places were grown up to ſuch a height, that they ſhould become like ſo many woods and forreſts for wild beaſts to lurk in; which accordingly came to paſs in the Babylonian Captivity, by reaſon of the ſmall number of the inhabitants that were left in the land.
Becauſe all the land ſhall become briers and thorns.] And ſo even their Vineyards, and other the choiceſt and moſt pleaſant places in the land, ſhall lye deſolate, and be turned into very wilderneſſes; the Lord hereby depriving them of the plenty which they had formerly abuſed to drunkenneſs and luxury.
Ver. 25. And on all hills that ſhall be digged with the mattock, there ſhall not come thither the fear of briers and thorns, &c.] This place is ſeveral ways expounded by Interpreters. But there are only two Expoſitions that ſeem to me to have any great probability in them, if we read the words, as they are rendered in our Tranſlation. The firſt is, that on all thoſe hilly places that ſhould be curiouſly kept and digged for Vineyards, or Orchards and Gardens, by the richer ſort, either for their profit or pleaſure, and fenced about with hedges of thorns and briers, that ſo they might be ſecured from the breaking in and biting of cattel, thoſe thorny fences ſhould be on every ſide ſo trodden and broken down, and taken away, that there ſhould be no fear of them to keep beaſts from entring in. But it ſhall be for the ſending forth of oxen, and for the treading of leſſer cattel; that is, theſe curious grounds being thus laid open, there ſhall be free entrance for all kind of cattel, as well great as ſmall, to feed and graze there at pleaſure. And then the ſecond is, (which to me ſeems far the moſt probable) that whereas the lower grounds ſhould be over-grown with briers and thorns, as thick and as high as ſo many woods and forreſts, as was ſaid in the foregoing verſes; on the contrary, upon the hills and mountains, that formerly uſed to lye deſolate, wholly over-grown with briers and thorns, there ſhould then be no fear of briers and thorns, and that becauſe thoſe inhabitants that were left in the land ſhould fly to theſe hills and mountains for refuge, as being ſteep and high, and inacceſſible places (according to that Luk. 21.21. Then let them which are in Judea flee to the mountains), and ſo being there, ſhould clear thoſe places of briers and thorns by ſtubbing them up with the mattock, and turn them into Paſture-ground for their cattel to feed in; and ſo then the very treading of the cattel would prevent the fear of the growing up of thoſe thorns and briers any more.