perished there. Again, in the subsequent and more remarkable completion of the prophecy in the destruction of Jerusalem and the dissolution of the commonwealth by the Romans, when the Jews, after the loss of above a million of men, had increased from the scanty residue that was left of them, and had become very numerous again in their country; Hadrian, provoked by their rebellious behaviour, slew above half a million more of them, and a second time almost extirpated the nation. Yet after these signal and almost universal destructions of that nation, and after so many other repeated exterminations and massacres of them, in different times, and on various occasions since, we yet see, with astonishment, that the stock still remains, from which God, according to his promise frequently given by his prophets, will cause his people to shoot forth again, and to flourish. For, above seventy MSS. (eleven ancient) read ; and so LXX. CHAP. VII. THE Confederacy of Retsin king of Syria, and Pekah king of Israel, against the kingdom of Judah, was formed in the times of Jotham; and perhaps the effects of it were felt in the latter part of his reign: see 2 Kings xv. 37. and note on chap. i. 7-9. However, in the very beginning of the reign of Ahaz, they jointly invaded Judah with a powerful army, and threatened to destroy or to dethrone the house of David. The. king and royal family being in the utmost consternation on receiving advices of their designs, Isaiah is sent to them to support and comfort them in their present distress, by assuring them, that God would make good his promises to David and his house. This makes the subject of this, and the following, and the beginning of the ninth chapters; in which there are many and great difficulties. Chapter seven begins with a historical account of the occasion of this prophecy and then follows, ver. 4—16. a prediction of the ill success of the designs of the Israelites and Syrians against Judah; and, from thence to the end of the chapter, a denunciation of the calamities to be brought upon the king and people of Judah by the Assyrians, whom they had now hired to assist them. Chapter eight has a pretty close connexion with the foregoing: it contains a confirmation of the prophecy before given of the approaching destruction of the kingdoms of Israel and Syria by the Assyrians; of the denunciation of the invasion of Judah by the same Assyrians: ver. 9, 10. give a repeated general assurance, that all the designs of the enemies of God's people shall be in the end disappointed, and brought to nought; ver. 11, &c. admonitions and threatenings (I do not attempt a more particular explanation of this very difficult part), concluding with an illustrious prophecy (chap. ix. 1-6.) of the manifestation of Messiah; the transcendent dignity of his character; and the universality and eternal duration of his kingdom. מלך ארם Vulg. reads ; וארס The Syriac omits .4 .MS ופקח בן read ובן : one or the other seems to be the true reading. I prefer the former: or, instead of NI 8, 9. "Though the head of Syria be Damascus, And the head of Damascus, Retsin ; "Here are six lines, or three distichs, the order of which seems to have been disturbed by a transposition, occasioned by three of the lines beginning with the same word ; which three lines ought not to have been separated by any other line intervening; but a copyist, having written the first of them, and casting his eye on the third, might easily proceed to write after the first line beginning with that which ought to have followed the third line beginning with . Then, finding his mistake, to preserve the beauty of his copy, added at the end the distich which should have been in the middle; making that the second distich which ought to have been the third. For the order as it now stands is preposterous; the destruction of Ephraim is denounced, and then their grandeur is set forth: whereas naturally the representation of the grandeur of Ephraim should precede that of their destruction. And the destruction of Ephraim has no coherence with the grandeur of Syria, simply as such, which it now follows; but it naturally and properly follows the grandeur of Ephraim, joined to that of Syria their ally. "The arrangement then of the whole sentence seems originally to have been thus: Though the head of Syria be Damascus ; And the head of Ephraim be Samaria; Ephraim shall be broken, that he be no more a people." DR. JUBB. 8. -threescore and five years] It was sixty-five years from the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, when this prophecy was delivered, to the total depopulation of the kingdom of Israel by Esarhaddon, who carried away the remains of the ten tribes which had been left by Tiglath Pileser and Shalmaneser, and who planted the country with new inhabitants. That the country was not wholly stripped of its inhabitants by Shalmaneser, appears from many passages of the history of Josiah ; where Israelites are mentioned as still remaining there, 2 Chron. xxxiv. 6, 7. 33. and xxxv. 18. 2 Kings xxiii. 19, 20. This seems to be the best explanation of the chronological difficulty in this place, which has much embarrassed the commentators: see Usserii Annal. V. T. ad an. 3327. and Sir I. Newton, Chronol. p. 283. "That the last deportation of Israel by Esarhaddon was in the sixtyfifth year after the second of Ahaz, is probable, for the following reasons: the Jews, in Seder Olam Rabba, and the Talmudists, in D. Kimchi on Ezek. iv. say, that Manasseh king of Judah was carried to Babylon by the king of Assyria's captains, 2 Chron. xxxiii. 11. in the twenty-second year of his reign; that is, before Christ 676, according to Dr. Blair's tables. And they are probably right in this. It could not be much earlier; as the king of Assyria was not king of Babylon till 680, ibid. As Esar- haddon was then in the neighbourhood of Samaria, it is highly probable that he did then carry away the last remains of Israel; and brought those strangers thither, who mention him as their founder, Ezra iv. 2. But this year is just the sixty-fifth year from the second of Ahaz, which was 740 before Christ. Now the carrying away of the last remains of Israel (who, till then, though their kingdom was destroyed forty-five years before, and though small in number, yet might keep up some form of being a people, by living according to their own laws), entirely put an end to the people of Israel, as a people separate from ail others: for from this time they never returned to their own country in a body, but were confounded with the people of Judah in the captivity, and the whole people, the ten tribes included, were called Jews." Dr. JUBB. 9. If ye believe not-] "This cause is very much illustrated, by considering the captivity of Manasseh as happening at the same time with this predicted final ruin of Ephraim as a people. The near connexion of the two facts makes the prediction of the one naturally to cohere with the prediction of the other. And the words are well suited to this event in the history of the people of Judah. If ye believe not, ye shall not be established:' that is, unless ye believe this prophecy of the destruction of Israel, ye Jews also, as well as the people of Israel, shall not remain established as a kingdom and people, ye also shall be visited with punishment at the same time. As our Saviour told the Jews in his time, 'unless ye repent, ye shall all likewise perish;' intimating their destruction by the Romans; to which also, as well as to the captivity of Manasseh, and to the Babylonish captivity, the views of the prophet might here extend. The close connexion of this threat to the Jews, with the prophecy of the destruction of Israel, is another strong proof, that the order of the preceeding lines above proposed is right." Dr. Jubb. Ibid. If ye believe not in me-] The exhortation of Jehoshaphat to his people, when God had promised to them, by the prophet Jahaziel, victory over the Moabites and Ammonites, is very like this both in sense and expression, and seems to be delivered in verse: "Hear me, O Judah; and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem! Believe in JEHOVAH your God, and ye shall be established: 2.Chron. xx. 20. Where both the sense and construction render very probable a conjecture of Archbishop Secker on this place; that instead of we should read. "If ye will not believe in me, ye shall not be established." So likewise Dr. Durell. The Chaldee has, "If ye will not believe in the words of the prophet;" which seems to be a paraphrase of the reading here proposed. In favour of which it may farther be observed, that in one MS. is upon a rasure; and another for the last reads, which would properly follow, but could not follow. 11. Go deep to the grave-] So Aquila, Sym. Theodot. Vulg. 14. JEHOVAH] For, twenty-five MSS. (nine ancient) read TT. And so verse 20. eighteen MSS. 14-16. When he shall know-] "Though so much has been written on this important passage, there is an obscurity and inconsequence which still attends it, in the general run of all the interpretations given to it by the most learned. And this obscure incoherence is given to it by the false rendering of a Hebrew particle, viz. in. This has been generally rendered, either that he may know,' or 'till he know.' It is capable of either version, without doubt. But either of these versions makes ver. 15. incoherent and inconsistent with ver. 16. For ver. 16. plainly means to give a reason for the assertion in ver. 15; because it is subjoined to it by the particle, for. But it is no reason why a child should eat butter and honey till he was at an age to distinguish, that before that time the land of his nativity should be free from its enemies. This latter supposition indeed implies what is inconsistent with the preceding assertion. For it implies, that in part of that time of the infancy spoken of, the land should not be free from enemies, and consequently these species of delicate food could not be attainable, as they are in times of peace. The other version, that he may know,' has no meaning at all: for what sense is there in asserting, that a child shall eat butter and honey, that he may know to refuse evil and choose good? is there any such effect in this food? Surely no. Besides, the child is thus represented to eat those things, which only a state of peace produces, during its whole infancy, inconsistently with ver. 16. which promises a relief from enemies only before the end of this infancy: implying plainly, that part of it would be passed in distressful times of war and siege; which was the state of things when the prophecy was delivered. "But all these objections are cut off, and a clear coherent sense is given to this passage by giving another sense to the particle; which never occurred to me, till I saw it in Harmer's Observ. vol. i. p. 299. See how coherent the words of the prophet run, with how natural a connexion one clause follows another, by properly rendering this one particle. Behold this Virgin shall conceive, and bear a Son, and thou shalt call his name Immanuel; butter and honey shall he eat, when he shall know to refuse evil, and choose good. For, before this child shall know to refuse evil, and choose good, the land shall be desolate, by whose two kings thou art distressed.' Thus ver. 16. subjoins a plain reason why the child should eat butter and honey, the food of plentiful times, when he came to a distinguishing age; viz. because before that time the country of the two kings, who now distressed Judea, should be desolated; and so Judea should recover that plenty with attends peace. That this rendering, which gives perspicuity and rational connexion to the passage, is according to the use of the Hebrew particle, is certain. Thus,S, 'at the appearing of morning, or, when morning appeared,' 'Exod. xiv. 27.; by, at meal-time, or, when it was time to eat,' Ruth. ii. 14. In the same manner, y, at his knowing, that is, when he knows.’ "Harmer (ibid.) has clearly shewn, that these articles of food are delicacies in the east; and as such denote a state of plenty. See also Josh. v. 6. They therefore naturally express the plenty of the country, as a mark of peace restored to it. Indeed, ver. 22. it expresses a plenty arising from the thinness of the people: but that it signifies, ver. 15. a plenty arising from deliverance from war then present, is evident; because otherwise there is no expression of this deliverance. And that a deliverance was intended to be here expressed is plain, from calling the child, which should be born, Immanuel, God with us. It is plain also, because it is before given to the prophet in charge to make a declaration of the deliverance, ver. 3-7; and it is there made: and this prophecy must undoubtedly be conformable to that in this matter." Dr. Jubb. The circumstance of the child's eating butter and honey is explained by Jarchi, as denoting a state of plenty : "Butyrum et mel comedet in fans iste, quoniam terra nostra plena erit omnis boni." Comment. in locum. The infant Jupiter, says Callimachus, was tenderly nursed with goat's milk and honey. Hymn. in Jov. 48. Homer, of the orphan daughters of Pandareus; “ Κομισσε δε δι Αφροδίτη Τυρῷ, και μελιτι γλυκερῳ, καὶ ἡδεῖ οινῳ.” "Venus in tender delicacy rears Odyss. xx. 68. Pope. With honey, milk, and wine, their infant years." Τρυφης εστιν ενδειξις "This is a description of delicate food;" says Eustathius on the place. Agreeably to the observations communicated by the learned person above-mentioned, which perfectly well explain the historical sense of this much-disputed passage, not excluding a higher secondary sense, the obvious and literal meaning of the prophecy is this: That within the time that a young woman, now a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should arrive at such an age as to distinguish between good and evil, that is, within a few years, (compare chap. viii. 4.) the enemies of Judah should be destroyed.' But the prophecy is introduced in so solemn a manner; the sign is so marked, as a sign selected and given by God himself, after Ahaz had rejected the offer of any sign of his own choosing out of the whole compass of nature; the terms of the prophecy are so peculiar, and the name of the child so expressive, containing in them much more than the circumstances of the birth of a common child required, or even admitted; that we may easily suppose, that, in minds prepared by the general expectation of a great deliverer to spring from the house of David, they raised hopes far beyond what the present occasion suggested; especially when it was found, that in the subsequent prophecy, delivered immediately afterward, this child, called Immanuel, is treated as the Lord and Prince of the land of Judah. Who could this be, other than the heir of the throne of David? under which character a great and even a divine person had been promised. No one of that age answered to this character, except Hezekiah; but he was certainly born nine or ten years before the delivery of this prophecy. That this was so understood at that time, is collected, I think, with great probability, from a passage of Micah, a prophet contemporary with Isaiah, but who began to prophesy after him; and who, as I have already observed, imitated him, and sometimes used his expressions. Micah, having delivered that remarkable prophecy, which determines the place of the birth of Messiah, "the Ruler of God's people, whose goings forth have been of old, from everlasting;" that it should be Bethlehem Ephrata; adds immediately, that nevertheless, in the meantime, God would deliver his people into the hands of their enemies; "he will give them up, till she, who is to bear a child, shall bring forth." Micah v. 3. This obviously and plainly refers to some known prophecy concerning a woman to bring forth a child; and seems much more properly applicable to this passage of Isaiah, than to any others of the same prophet, to which some interpreters have applied it. St. Matthew, therefore, in applying this prophecy to the birth of Christ, does it not merely in the way of accommodating the words of the prophet to a suitable case not in the prophet's view; but takes it in its strictest, clearest, and most important sense, and |