1Timothy 5:17: What is “Double Honor”?

From the last in a six post series over at New Leaven comes this little puzzler, courtesy of that “hard to understand” apostle, Paul:

1Ti 5:17-18 NET. Elders who provide effective leadership must be counted worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard in speaking and teaching. (18) For the scripture says, “Do not muzzle an ox while it is treading out the grain,” and, “The worker deserves his pay.”

The question has arisen: Just what does “honor” and “double honor” mean?

I’m no scholar, but thanks to e-Sword, I can give you a range of antique opinion upon this question.

Antique Quotes on 1 Tim 5:17:

John Calvin:
Accounted worthy of double honor: Chrysostom interprets “double honor” as meaning “support and reverence.” I do not oppose his opinion; let it be adopted by any one that chooses. But for my own part, I think it is more probable that a comparison is here drawn between widows and elders. Paul had formerly enjoined that honor should be paid — to widows; but elders are more worthy of being honored than widows, and, with respect to them, ought therefore to receive double honor.

George Haydock:
1Ti 5:17-18 The priests, or ancient ministers, (i.e. bishops, priests, &c.) deserve a double honour; i.e. to be more liberally supplied and maintained by the flock, especially when they labour in preaching the word. — Thou shalt not muzzle, &c. See 1 Corinthians ix. 9. (Witham) — It is the obligation of the faithful to provide a decent maintenance for their pastors, and the duty of pastors to be content with little. Happy the church where there is no further difference found than between the liberality of the former and the disinterestedness of the latter!

John Gill:
counted worthy of double honour; which some understand of honour in this world, and in the world to come, and which they have; they are honoured now by Christ, though reproached by the world, by being called unto, qualified for, and succeeded in the work of the ministry; and when they have faithfully discharged it, they will be honoured by him hereafter, and be introduced into his joy with commendation, and shine as the stars for ever and ever. But rather this is to be understood both of that outward respect that is to be shown them by words and actions; and of a sufficient maintenance that is to be provided for them; in which sense the word “honour” is used in this chapter before; See Gill on 1Ti_5:3, and some think that the comparison is between the widows before mentioned, and these elders; that if poor widows in the church are to be honoured and maintained, then much more the officers of it; these are worthy of more honour, even of double honour, or, a larger and a more honourable main tenant: and indeed this seems to be the meaning of the word “double” when used both in an ill and in a good sense; see Rev_18:6 and is an allusion to the firstborn among the Jews, who was to have a double portion of his father’s goods, Deu_21:17 and so may here signify, that the ministers of the Gospel ought not to have a short and scanty, but a large and honourable maintenance.

Adam Clarke:
Double honor – Διπλης τιμης. Almost every critic of note allows that τιμη here signifies reward, stipend, wages. Let him have a double or a larger salary who rules well; and why? Because in the discharge of his office he must be at expense, in proportion to his diligence, in visiting and relieving the sick, in lodging and providing for strangers; in a word, in his being given to hospitality, which was required of every bishop or presbyter.

Matthew Henry:
1Ti 5:17-25
Here are directions,
I. Concerning the supporting of ministers. Care must be taken that they be honourably maintained (1Ti_5:17): Let the elders that rule well be counted worthy of double honour (that is, of double maintenance, double to what they have had, or to what others have), especially those who labour in the word and doctrine, those who are more laborious than others. Observe, The presbytery ruled, and the same that ruled were those who laboured in the word and doctrine: they had not one to preach to them and another to rule them, but the work was done by one and the same person. Some have imagined that by the elders that rule well the apostle means lay-elders, who were employed in ruling but not in teaching, who were concerned in church-government, but did not meddle with the administration of the word and sacraments; and I confess this is the plainest text of scripture that can be found to countenance such an opinion. But it seem a little strange that mere ruling elders should be accounted worthy of double honour, when the apostle preferred preaching to baptizing, and much more would he prefer it to ruling the church; and it is more strange that the apostle should take no notice of them when he treats of church-officers; but, as it is hinted before, they had not, in the primitive church, one to preach to them and another to rule them, but ruling and teaching were performed by the same persons, only some might labour more in the word and doctrine than others. Here we have, 1. The work of ministers; it consists principally in two things: ruling well and labouring in the word and doctrine. This was the main business of elders or presbyters in the days of the apostles. 2. The honour due to those who were not idle, but laborious in this work; they were worthy of double honour, esteem, and maintenance. He quotes a scripture to confirm this command concerning the maintenance of ministers that we might think foreign; but it intimates what a significancy there was in many of the laws of Moses, and particularly in this, Thou shalt not muzzle the ox that treads out the corn, Deu_25:4. The beasts that were employed in treading out the corn (for that way they took instead of threshing it) were allowed to feed while they did the work, so that the more work they did the more food they had; therefore let the elders that labour in the word and doctrine be well provided for; for the labourer is worthy of his reward (Mat_10:10), and there is all the reason in the world that he should have it. We hence learn, (1.) God, both under the law, and now under the gospel, has taken care that his ministers be well provided for. Does God take care for oxen, and will he not take care of his own servants? The ox only treads out the corn of which they make the bread that perishes; but ministers break the bread of life which endures for ever. (2.) The comfortable subsistence of ministers, as it is God’s appointment that those who preach the gospel should live of the gospel (1Co_9:14), so it is their just due, as much as the reward of the labourer; and those who would have ministers starved, or not comfortably provided for, God will require it of them another day.

John Welsey:
1Ti 5:17 Let the elders that rule well – Who approve themselves faithful stewards of all that is committed to their charge. Be counted worthy of double honour – A more abundant provision, seeing that such will employ it all to the glory of God. As it was the most laborious and disinterested men who were put into these offices, so whatever any one had to bestow, in his life or death, was generally lodged in their hands for the poor. By this means the churchmen became very rich in after ages, but as the design of the donors was something else, there is the highest reason why it should be disposed of according to their pious intent. Especially those – Of them. Who labour – Diligently and painfully. In the word and teaching – In teaching the word.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown:
be counted worthy of double honour — that is, the honor which is expressed by gifts (1Ti_5:3, 1Ti_5:18) and otherwise. If a presbyter as such, in virtue of his office, is already worthy of honor, he who rules well is doubly so [Wiesinger] (1Co_9:14; Gal_6:6; 1Th_5:12). Not literally that a presbyter who rules well should get double the salary of one who does not rule well [Alford], or of a presbyteress widow, or of the deacons [Chrysostom]. “Double” is used for large in general (Rev_18:6).

Albert Barnes:
Be counted worthy of double honour – Of double respect; that is, of a high degree of respect; of a degree of respect becoming their age and office; compare 1Th_5:12-13. From the quotation which is made in 1Ti_5:18, in relation to this subject, it would seem probable that the apostle had some reference also to their support, or to what was necessary for their maintenance. There is no improbability in supposing that all the officers of the church, of whatever grade or rank, may have had some compensation, corresponding to the amount of time which their office required them to devote to the service of the church. Nothing would be more reasonable than that, if their duties in the church interfered with their regular employments in their secular calling, their brethren should contribute to their support; compare notes on 1 Cor. 9.

Marvin Vincent:
Double honor (διπλης τιμης)
This at least includes pecuniary remuneration for services, if it is not limited to that. The use of τιμή as pay or price appears Mat_27:6, Mat_27:9; Act_4:34; Act_7:16; 1Co_6:20. Double, not in a strictly literal sense, but as πλείονα τιμὴν more honor, Heb_3:3. The comparison is with those Elders who do not exhibit equal capacity or efficiency in ruling. The passage lends no support to the Reformed theory of two classes of Elders – ruling and teaching. The special honor or emolument is assigned to those who combine qualifications for both.

A.T. Robertson:
Of double honour (diples times). Old and common contract adjective (diploos, two-fold, in opposition to haploos, single fold). But why “of double honour”? See note on 1Ti_6:1 for “of all honour.” White suggests “remuneration” rather than “honour” for times (a common use for price or pay). Liddon proposes “honorarium” (both honour and pay and so “double”). Wetstein gives numerous examples of soldiers receiving double pay for unusual services. Some suggest twice the pay given the enrolled widows.

There are generally accounted five options to understanding “double honor”:

1. honor and pay

2. double honor as 1) elders and 2) ones who worked well

3. double the gifts given widows

4. more, but not double the pay of widows

5. more honor, not pay, as widows

(College Press NT Commentary, Baker NT Commentary)

Psalms Chapter 112:1-10 Antique Commentary Quotes

John Calvin
Psa 112:1
1Blessed is the man that feareth Jehovah Although the prophet begins with an exhortation, he has, as I have already pointed out, something farther in view, than simply the calling upon the faithful to praise God. To practice wickedness, and perpetrate injustice, is, in all quarters, accounted a great happiness; and, although integrity may be occasionally praised, nevertheless, there is scarcely one among a hundred who pursues it, because all imagine that they will be miserable unless, by one means or another, they seize as booty every thing which comes in their way. In opposition to this, the prophet tells us that more advantage is to be expected from God’s paternal regard, than from the inflicting of every species of injury, and the perpetrating of every kind of injustice in our power; and by setting before us the certain hope of reward, he calls us back to the practice of equity and beneficence. The following is the analysis which I give of the verse: Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord, and delighteth himself in his commandments; and thus, by the second clause of the verse, the prophet specifies in what the fear of God consists. And that the addition of this explanatory clause is called for, is quite apparent from what we remarked towards the conclusion of the preceding psalm. For, while the law is boldly contemned by mankind, yet nothing is more common than to pretend that they fear God. Such impiety is well refuted by the prophet, when he acknowledges none as belonging to the worshippers of God, but he who endeavors to keep his law. The Hebrew verb חפף, chaphets, is rather emphatical, which is, as it were, to take his pleasure, and I have rendered to delight himself For the prophet makes a distinction between a willing and prompt endeavor to keep the law, and that which consists in mere servile and constrained obedience. We must, therefore, cheerfully embrace the law of God, and that, too, in such a manner, that the love of it, with all its sweetness, may overcome all the allurements of the flesh, otherwise, mere attention to it will be unavailing. Hence a man cannot be regarded as a genuine observer of the law, until he has attained to this — that the delight which he takes in the law of God renders obedience agreeable to him. I now resume the consideration of the passage at large. The prophet, in affirming that the worshippers of God are happy, guards us against the very dangerous deception which the ungodly practice upon themselves, in imagining that they can reap a sort of happiness, I know not what, from doing evil.

Adam Clarke
Psa 112:1
Blessed is the man that feareth the Lord – This seems to be the continuation of the preceding Psalm: there it was asserted that the beginning of wisdom was the fear of the Lord; and here the blessedness of the man who thus fears is stated.

That delighteth greatly – It is not enough to fear God, we must also love him: fear will deter us from evil; love will lead us to obedience. And the more a man fears and loves God, the more obedient will he be; till at last he will delight greatly in the commandments of his Maker.

John Calvin
Psa 112:2
2His seed shall be powerful For the purpose of confirming the statement which he advanced respecting the happiness of the man that fears Jehovah and takes delight in his commandments, the prophet enumerates the tokens of God’s loving-kindness, which he is wont to bestow upon his worshippers. And, in the first place, he says that God’s fatherly kindness is not confined to their own persons, it also extends to their posterity: agreeably to what is said in the law, “I am merciful to a thousand generations, towards them that love me and keep my commandments,” Exo_34:7. And in Psa_103:8, and other passages, we have formerly adverted to this doctrinal statement. As, however, not a few are disposed to pervert this doctrine, by applying it as the standard according to which God dispenses his temporal favors, it is therefore proper to bear in mind what I have said in Psa_37:25, that these are bestowed according to the manner, and in the measure, which God pleases. Sometimes it happens that a good man is childless; and barrenness itself is considered a curse of God. Again, many of God’s servants are oppressed with poverty and want, are borne down under the weight of sickness, and harassed and perplexed with various calamities. It is therefore necessary to keep this general principle in view, That God sometimes bestows his bounty more profusely, and, at other times, more sparingly, upon his children, according as he sees it to be most for their good; and, moreover, he sometimes conceals the tokens of his kindness, apparently as if he had no regard for his people at all. Still, amid this perplexity, it constantly appears that these words were not uttered in vain, the righteous and their offspring are blessed God very frequently blasts the vain hopes of the ungodly, whose sole object is to bear rule in the world, and to raise their children to places of wealth and honor. On the other hand, as the faithful are satisfied with bringing up their children in the fear of God, and contented to live sparingly, God, as it were with an outstretched hand, exalts them to honor. Add to this, that anciently, under the law, the truth of this doctrine was more evident; because it was requisite for a people inexperienced and feeble, to be trained gradually, by means of temporal benefits, to entertain a better hope. And in our times, but for our vices, God’s temporal kindness would shine more brightly upon us. For experience demonstrates that what is immediately subjoined does not uniformly hold true, wealth and riches shall be in the houses of the righteous It is no uncommon occurrence for the virtuous and holy to suffer hunger, and to be in want even of the most homely fare; and, for this reason, it would not be for their good were God to bestow more earthly benefits upon them. In afflicting circumstances, numbers of them would be incapable of behaving in a manner becoming their profession. In the meantime, we may observe, that the grace which the prophet commends appears principally in this, that the good and sincere are satisfied with their humble estate, whereas no portion, however large, even to the extent of the world itself, will content the ungodly worldling. The old adage holds true, That the covetous wants that which he has, as well as that which he has not; because he is master of nothing, and is the slave of his own wealth. In connection with this clause must also be taken that which follows, the righteousness of good men endureth for ever This, in fact, constitutes the true and proper difference between the godly and ungodly; because the latter may, for a time, hoard up immense wealth; yet, all that shall, according to the words of the prophet, “suddenly vanish away at the blast of the Almighty,” Hag_1:9. And we daily see that what has been acquired by violence and deceit, becomes the prey and property of others. But, to the faithful, their integrity is the best and surest preserver of God’s blessings.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:2
His seed shall be mighty upon earth – His children; his posterity. That is, they shall be prospered; honored; distinguished among people: distinguished for their virtues, for their influence, for their success in life. This refers to what was regarded among the Hebrews as an object of great desire, and is in accordance with the promises everywhere found in their Scriptures. See Psa_25:13, note; Psa_37:25-26, notes. Compare Gen_12:2; Gen_17:6; Exo_20:6. It is in accordance, also, with a general fact in the course of events. The best security for the virtue and success of children is the virtue and the piety of parents; the surest inheritance as pertaining to happiness, respectability, and usefulness in life, is that which is derived from the example, the prayers, the counsel of a pious father and mother.

The generation of the upright shall be blessed – The family; the children. Such promises are to be expected to be fulfilled in general; it is not required by any proper rules of interpreting language that this should be universally and always true.

John Gill
Psa 112:3 Wealth and riches shall be in his house,…. In his family; if not possessed by him, yet by his posterity: though rather this signifies spiritual riches, the riches of grace, the unsearchable riches of Christ, durable riches and righteousness; seeing it is connected with an everlasting righteousness, as in the next clause.

And his righteousness endureth for ever; he is not hurt by his temporal riches, as others are, the prodigal, the covetous, and formal professor; he continues the good and righteous man he was, notwithstanding his riches. Some understand this of his liberality with his riches, as alms deeds are sometimes called righteousness; see Psa_112:9 though it rather intends either inherent righteousness, the new man which is created in righteousness, the inward principle of grace which always continues; or the righteousness of Christ imputed to him, which is an everlasting one.

Adam Clarke
Psa 112:3
Wealth and riches shall be in his house – This is often the case: a godly man must save both time and money. Before he was converted he lost much time, and squandered his money. All this he now saves, and therefore wealth and riches must be in his house; and if he do not distribute to the necessities of the poor, they will continue to accumulate till they be his curse; or God will, by his providence, sweep them away. Both צדקה tsedakah and δικαιοσυνη are often used to signify, not only justice and righteousness, but also beneficence and almsgiving; and this is most probably the meaning here. See Psa_112:9.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:3
Wealth and riches shall be in his house – The Septuagint and the Vulgate render this, “glory and riches shall be in his house.” The word, however, properly means riches or wealth, and the two terms are used apparently to convey the idea that wealth or property in “varied forms” would be in his house; that is, not merely gold and silver, but all that was understood to constitute wealth – variety of garments, articles of furniture, etc. This promise is of the same nature as that of the previous verse. It pertains to a general truth in regard to the influence of religion in promoting prosperity. Compare the notes at 1Ti_4:8.

And his righteousness endureth for ever – That is, The effects of it shall be transmitted from age to age in the prosperity, the respectability, the wealth, the happiness of his descendants. It travels on from age to age, and blesses distant generations.

John Calvin
Psa 112:4
4Light ariseth The Hebrew verb זרח, zarach, may be taken intransitively, as I have inserted it in the text, or transitively, as in the marginal reading; in either way the signification is the same. Whichsoever of these translations you adopt, the words are susceptible of a twofold interpretation; either, that as the sun shines on one part of the earth, and all the other parts of it are enveloped in darkness, so God exempts the righteous from the common calamities of human life; or, as day succeeds night, so God, though he permit the hearts of his servants to be in heaviness for a season, will cause a time of calmness and clearness to return to them. If the latter exposition is adopted, then, by darkness, or by the cloudy, and rainy, or stormy season, the prophet means the afflictions to which God subjects his servants for the trial of their patience. The former interpretation appears to be more appropriate, That, when the whole world is overwhelmed with troubles, God’s grace shines upon the faithful, who feel comfortable and happy, because he is propitious towards them. It is thus that their condition is properly distinguished from that which forms the common lot of other men. For the ungodly, however they may exult in prosperity, are, nevertheless, blind in the midst of light, because they are strangers to God’s paternal kindness; and, in adversity, they are plunged into the darkness of death; and, consequently, they never enjoy a season of calm repose. On the contrary, the godly, upon whom the favor of God constantly shines, though liable to the ills incident to humanity, are never overwhelmed with darkness, and hence the propriety of what is here stated, light ariseth to them in darkness If we give to the Hebrew verb an active signification, then, in one respect, the construction of the words will be preferable. For I have no doubt that the prophet intends, as applicable to God, the epithets, gracious, merciful, and justTherefore, if we read it as a neuter verb, light ariseth, then the latter clause of the verse will be the reason for the statement made in the former clause. As to the exposition, that the righteous and humane do not diffuse darkness over the world, as the unrighteous and wicked do; that they do not extract smoke from light, but light from smoke; it must be viewed as nothing else than a perversion of the prophet’s language.

Adam Clarke
Psa 112:4
There ariseth light in the darkness – The upright are always happy; and when tribulations come, God lifts up the light of his countenance upon him, and causes all occurences to work together for his good.

He is gracious, and full of compassion, and righteous – He enjoys the favor of God; that grace makes him compassionate; and in the general tenor of his conduct he is righteous. From these principles he shows favor (Psa_112:5) to him that needs it; that is, to the real poor he gives of his substance; and others he obliges by lending, they not being utterly in want, but standing in need only of a little present help. But he takes heed to whom he gives and to whom he lends; that in the first case his bounty may be well applied, and in the second he may not oblige the person who only seeks, under the notion of a loan, to appropriate the money borrowed. To prevent evils of this kind he acts prudently, and guides his affairs with discretion, Psa_112:5.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:4
Unto the upright – The just; the pious; the man who fears God.

There ariseth light in the darkness – This is a new form of the blessing which follows the fear of the Lord, or another of the benefits which spring from true religion, and by which the pious man is distinguished from other people. The distinction is not that days of darkness will not come upon him as well as upon others, for he may be sick as others are, he may be bereaved as others are, he may lose his property as others do – since there are general laws that affect mankind in these respects. God has not promised that he will interpose to save his people from these things, but that he will save them in them. The peculiarity in regard to those who fear God is, that these things will not always continue; that they shall not be overwhelmed by them; that it will not be uninterrupted and unmitigated gloom; that the sky shall not be always overcast. Compare Psa_97:11, note; Job_11:17, note.

He is gracious, and full of compassion, and righteous – These words are designed to be applied to the “upright” man, and are intended more fully to designate his character, and to show “why” light shall spring up to him when he is in darkness. It is because his character is “really” pure and holy, so that whatever cloud may come over it for a time, however it may be temporarily obscured, however he may be calumniated by men, or however God may for a time seem to forsake him and to treat him as if he were a bad man, yet ultimately his character will appear as it really is. Light will come in upon the darkness. The clouds will break away. The prejudices against him will be dispersed. Full justice will be done to his character both by man and by God, and the world will see that he is a just and pious man. See the notes at Psa_37:5-6. Every man will ultimately be seen as he is; every man will attain the position, and have the reputation which he “ought” to have.

John Calvin
Psa 112:5
5A good man This is the commonly received interpretation of the passage. I am disposed, however, to prefer another, That it shall be well with those who are gracious and communicative; because this is more in accordance with the purport of the prophet’s language. It is his intention to show how greatly the ungodly are deceived, when they aspire after happiness by nefarious and unlawful practices; seeing that the favor of God is the source and cause of all good things. Hence it becomes necessary to supply the relative who. He proceeds, therefore, to put us on our guard as to the deception which those practice upon themselves, who hasten to enrich themselves by sordid parsimony and oppressive extortion; inasmuch as the faithful, by their clemency and kindness, open up a channel, through which the favor of God flows to them: for the term טוב, tob, though in the masculine gender, signifying good, is often taken as if it were neuter, to denote that which is good. He puts lending as if it were the fruit of mercy; for the usurer also lends, but it is that, under the false pretense of assisting the distressed, he may plunder them. It is, then, the truly liberal, who, from compassion, and not with the design of ensnaring the poor, grant relief to them, that God makes prosperous. The term דבים, debarim, in the end of the verse, signifies words; but, along with David Kimchi, the most correct expositor among the Rabbins, I take it to mean affairs. Words is a very tame translation, not to say, that, if this had been the prophet’s intention, he would have expressed himself in more simple terms. The translation which I have given is the proper one, that the righteous will manage their affairs with prudence and discernment; so that, in their domestic affairs, they will neither be too lavish nor sordidly parsimonious; but, in every thing, they will study to combine frugality with economy, without giving way to luxury. And, in all their mercantile transactions; they will always be guided by the principles of equity and morality.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:5
A good man showeth favor – He has the means to show favor to others, or to promote their welfare, and he is disposed to do this. It is the characteristic of a good man – of a heart that is truly pious – to do good to others; to promote their welfare here, and to assist them in their endeavor to secure happiness in the world to come.

And lendeth – The original word here – לוה lâvâh – means to join oneself to anyone; to cleave to him; then, to form the union which is constituted between debtor and creditor, borrower and lender. Here it is used in the latter sense, and it means that a good man will accommodate another – a neighbor – with money, or with articles to be used temporarily and returned again. A man who always “borrows” is not a desirable neighbor; but a man who never lends – who is never willing to accommodate – is a neighbor that no one would wish to live near – a crooked, perverse, bad man. True religion will always dispose a man to do acts of kindness in any and every way possible.

He will guide his affairs – The word used here means literally to hold, contain; to hold up, or sustain; to nourish, to furnish the means of living. Gen_45:11; Gen_47:12; Gen_50:21. Here it means that he would uphold or manage his business.

With discretion – Margin, “judgment;” so the Hebrew. He would do it prudently, sensibly, economically, wisely. This is, or should be, one of the characteristics of a good man. Religion prompts to this; religion will aid a man in doing this; religion will tend to check everything of a contrary nature. A man who neglects his “affairs,” who pays no attention to his business, who is indifferent whether he is successful or fails, is a man who gives “just so evidence” that he is a stranger to true religion.

John Calvin
Psa 112:6
6Surely he shall not be moved. The Hebrew particle כי, ki, may here be taken in its natural or causal meaning, and thus be rendered for, especially if in the preceding verse we adopt the marginal reading, It shall be well with the man. For he refers in more explicit terms to that happiness of which he spake, that God sustains the compassionate and humane, so that amid all the vicissitudes of life they remain unmoved; that he makes their innocence appear, and protects them from unjust calumny. It is said they are never moved They are indeed liable to the incidents common to humanity, and even may often appear as if they were about to sink under the weight of their calamities; but their confidence remains unshaken, and by invincible patience they surmount all their adversities. With God as the defender of their righteousness, they yet do not escape from being assailed by the slanders of the ungodly, but it is enough for them that their name is blessed before God, the angels, and the whole assembly of the godly.
John Gill
Psa 112:6 Surely he shall not be moved for ever,…. Out of the heart of God, and from his love and affections; out of the covenant of grace, and from an interest in it; out of the hands of Christ, or off of him the foundation; out of the house and family of God; out of a state of grace and righteousness, into condemnation: and though he may be distressed by afflictions, yet not destroyed; and though he may be so shaken, as to fall from some degree of steadfastness in the faith, and into sin, yet not so as to perish everlastingly: the saint’s perseverance is a sure and certain truth, and to be depended upon.

The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance; with good men, and especially such whose names are recorded in Scripture: and even others are remembered after death; and for a long time after, their pious characters, sayings, actions, sufferings, works, and writings; and with God, who remembers his love to them, his covenant with them, his promises to them; has a book of remembrance for their thoughts, words, and actions; which will be remembered and spoken of at the last day, when forgotten by them; see Pro_10:9 &c.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:6
Surely he shall not be moved for ever – Luther, “For he shall remain always.” He shall be fixed, stable, firm, prosperous. He shall not be driven from place to place. He shall have a permanent home. He shall have a steady reputation. He shall have a constant influence. He shall be a firm, establislied, prosperous man. Of course this is to be taken in the general, and should not be pressed to mean that it will be, in the most literal sense, and always, true, for a good man “may” be “unfortunate in business,” and suffer with others; he may be sick; he may see reason to change his residence; he will certainly die. But still it is true that religion “tends” to produce this permanency, and that in this respect there is a marked difference between people who are truly pious, and those who are not.

The righteous shall be in everlasting remembrance – In Pro_10:7, it is said that “the name of the wicked shall rot;” and the meaning here is, that the way to secure a grateful remembrance among people after we are dead is to be righteous – to do something that shall deserve to be remembered. It cannot mean that a man who is righteous will “never” be forgotten, or that his name and deeds will never pass from the recollection of mankind – for that would not be true; but that people will delight to cherish the memory of the righteous; that they will be disposed to do justice to their character after they are dead; that the benevolent and the upright will be remembered when the names of the wicked shall be forgotten. The world has no interest in keeping up the memory of bad people, and as soon as it can be done hastens to forget them. Wicked people are remembered only when their deeds are enormous, and then their memory is cherished only to admonish and to warn. The world has no interest in keeping up the memory of Benedict Arnold, or Alexander VI, or Caesar Borgia except to warn future generations of the guilt and baseness of treason and profligacy; it “has” an interest in never suffering the names of Howard, of Wilberforce, of Henry Martyn, to die, for those names excite to noble feelings and to noble efforts wherever they are known. Such names are to be had “in everlasting remembrance.”

John Calvin
Psa 112:7
7.He shall not be afraid when he hears evil tidings This may appear to be a confirmation of the statement contained in the preceding verse, being as much as to say, That the righteous are exempted from the infamous name which the reprobate secure to themselves by their vicious conduct. I rather take the meaning to be, that the righteous, unlike unbelievers, who tremble at every even the slightest rumor, calmly and peacefully confide in God’s paternal care, amid all the evil tidings which may reach them. Whence is it that unbelievers are in constant agitation, but that they imagine they are the sport of fortune on the earth, while God remains at ease in heaven? No wonder, then, that the rustling of the falling leaf troubles and alarms them. From such uneasiness the faithful are freed, because they neither give heed to rumors, nor does the fear of them prevent them from constantly invoking God. The children of God may also manifest symptoms of fear at the prospect of impending danger; for were they altogether regardless of calamities, such indifference would be the result, not of confidence in God, but of insensibility. But should they not be able to lay aside all fear and anxiety, yet, acknowledging God as the guardian of their life, and pursuing the tenor of their way, they intrust themselves to his preserving care, and cheerfully resign themselves to his disposal. This is that magnanimity of the righteous, under the influence of which the prophet declares they can disregard those rumors of evil which strike others with alarm. Wisely, too, do they rely upon God for support; because, encompassed on all sides with deaths innumerable, we would sink into despair were we not borne up by the confidence that we are secure under God’s protection. Genuine stability, then, is that which the prophet here describes, and which consists in reposing with unshaken confidence in God. On the other hand, that presumptuous confidence with which the ungodly are intoxicated exposes them the more, to the indignation of God, inasmuch as they overlook the frailty of human life, and in their pride of heart madly set themselves in opposition to him. Therefore, when “they shall say, Peace and safety, then shall sudden destruction come upon them,” (1Th_5:3.) But a sense of calamities, while it alarms and disconcerts the faithful, does not make them faint-hearted, because it does not shake their faith, by which they are rendered bold and steadfast. In a word, they are not insensible to their trials, but the confidence which they place in God enables them to rise above all the cares of the present life. Thus they preserve calmness and composedness of mind, and wait patiently till the fit season arrives for taking vengeance upon the reprobate.

Adam Clarke
Psa 112:7
He shall not be afraid of evil tidings – He knows that God governs the world, therefore he fears not for futurity. And as to the calumnies of men, he fears them not, because his heart is fixed – determined to walk in the path of duty, whatever persecutions he may suffer, for he trusts in the Lord.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:7
He shall not be afraid of evil tidings – Of bad news; of reverses and losses; of the destruction of his ship at sea, or his property by land; of disaster by flood, by famine, by war. His heart will so fully confide in God that he can commit all calmly into his hands. He will feel assured that all will be well; that nothing occurs but that which the wisest and the best Being in the universe sees it best should occur; and that in all which “does” take place he is able to sustain the sufferer. There is nothing so well suited to make the mind calm as trust in God. What has a man to be afraid of who does trust in him? Compare Psa_27:3; Psa_46:2; Psa_56:3-4; Heb_13:6; Pro_1:33.

His heart is fixed – Is firm; is established. See the notes at Psa_57:7.

Trusting in the Lord – This is the reason “why” his heart is “fixed” or firm. It is not any native courage or resolution; it is not any firmness of his own; it is simply because he has confidence in God, and feels assured that all things will be well.

Adam Clarke
Psa 112:8
His heart is established – סמוך לבו samuch libbo, “his heart is propped up;” he is buttressed up by the strength of his Maker.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:8
His heart is established – Sustained; upheld. This is the same idea, though somewhat varied in form. The word means to sustain; to support; and the idea is, that there is some basis of support – some strength – which is not his own.

He shall not be afraid – When he is assailed by enemies.

Until he see his desire upon his enemies – This implies that he had nothing really to fear. He would certainly overcome his foes; and in the meantime he might look calmly on all their efforts to destroy him, for those efforts would be vain. So the believer now looks calmly on all his spiritual foes. He has nothing to fear, for he will overcome them all; he will certainly triumph; he will trample them all under his feet. He may well, therefore, endure these conflicts for a brief period, for the issue is certain, and the conflict will soon come to an end.

John Calvin
Psa 112:9
9He has distributed, he hath given to the poor Once more he affirms that the righteous never lose the fruit and the reward of their liberality. And first, by dispersing, the prophet intimates, that they did not give sparingly and grudgingly, as some do who imagine that they discharge their duty to the poor when they dole out a small pittance to them, but that they give liberally as necessity requires and their means allow; for it may happen that a liberal heart does not possess a large portion of the wealth of this world. All that the prophet means is, that they are never so parsimonious as not to be always ready to distribute according to their means. Next he adds, they give to the poor, meaning that they do not bestow their charity at random, but with prudence and discretion meet the wants of the necessitous. We are aware that unnecessary and superfluous expenditure for the sake of ostentation is frequently lauded by the world; and, consequently, a larger quantity of the good things of this life is squandered away in luxury and ambition than is dispensed in charity prudently bestowed. The prophet instructs us that the praise which belongs to liberality does not consist in distributing our goods without any regard to the objects upon whom they are conferred, and the purposes to which they are applied, but in relieving the wants of the really necessitous, and in the money being expended on things proper and lawful. This passage is quoted by Paul, (2Co_9:9 ) in which he informs us that it is an easy matter for God to bless us with plenty, so that we may exercise our bounty freely, deliberately, and impartially, and this accords best with the design of the prophet. The next clause, his righteousness endureth for ever, is susceptible of two interpretations. That immoderate ambition which impels the ungodly to squander away their goods merits not the name of virtue. It may, therefore, with propriety be said, that it is a uniform course of liberality which is here praised by the prophet, according to what he formerly observed, that the righteous manage their affairs with discretion. If any prefer to refer it to the fruit of righteousness, I have no objection. And, indeed, it appears to be a repetition of the same sentence which lately came under our notice. Then the prophet shows how God by his benefits preserves the glory of that righteousness which is due to their liberality, and does not disappoint them of their reward, in that he exalteth their horn more and more, that is, their power or their prosperous condition.

Adam Clarke
Psa 112:9
He hath dispersed – He has scattered abroad his munificence; he has given particularly to the poor; his righteousness – his almsgiving, his charity, remaineth for ever. See on Psa_112:3 (note).

His horn – His power and authority shall be exalted with honor. He shall rise to influence only through his own worth, and not by extortion or flattery.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:9
He hath dispersed … – This is another characteristic of a righteous man, and another reason of the permanent honor which will be rendered to him. The meaning is, that he is liberal; he freely scatters what he has; he divides it with those who are needy and unfortunate. One part of mankind have an overplus – have more than they need for themselves and their families – and that overplus is what is designed to meet the needs of the unfortunate, the weak, the aged, the imbecile, the infirm, who have “not” enough. It is the “treasury” of God – the “reservoir” where that is gathered which is to be distributed for the needs of the helpless and the dependent. The righteous man is one who enters fully into this arrangement, and who feels that all this overplus belongs to God, and is to be appropriated as he shall direct.

His righteousness endureth for ever – His acts of charity are constant. His piety is not fitful, spasmodic, uncertain; it is steady principle; it is firm and solid; it may always be relied on. See Psa_112:3.

His horn shall be exalted with honor – See the notes at Psa_75:10.

John Calvin
Psa 112:10
10.The wicked shall see it. Here follows a contrast similar to that which we met with in Psa_2:5, which renders the grace of God towards the faithful the more illustrious. His meaning is, that though the wicked may cast off all regard to piety, and banish from their minds all thoughts of human affairs being under the superintending providence of God, they shall yet be made to feel, whether they will or no, that the righteous, in compliance with God’s command, do not vainly devote themselves to the cultivation of charity and mercy. Let them harden themselves as they choose, yet he declares that the honor, which God confers upon his children, shall be exhibited to them, the sight of which shall make them gnash with their teeth, and shall excite an envy that shall consume them by inches. In conclusion, he adds, that the wicked shall be disappointed of their desires They are never content, but are continually thirsting after something, and their confidence is as presumptuous as their avarice is unbounded. And hence, in their foolish expectations, they do not hesitate at grasping at the whole world. But the prophet tells them that God will snatch from them what they imagined was already in their possession, so that they shall always depart destitute and famishing.

Adam Clarke
Psa 112:10
The wicked shall see it – רשע rasha, the wicked one. Some think Satan is meant. It is distinguished from רשעים reshaim, wicked men, in the conclusion of the verse.

Shall gnash with his teeth – Through spite and ill will.

And melt away – Through envy and hopeless expectation of similar good; for his desire in reference to himself and in reference to him who is the object of his envy, shall perish – shall come to nothing.

Albert Barnes
Psa 112:10
The wicked shall see it, and be grieved – They shall see his prosperity; shall see the evidence that God approves his character and his conduct. The word rendered “grieved” means rather to be angry or enraged. Perhaps the word “fret” would best express the sense.

He shall gnash with his teeth – As indicative of hatred and wrath. See the notes at Psa_37:12.

And melt away – Disappear – as snow does that melts; or as a snail (see the notes at Psa_58:8); or as waters that run away (see the notes at Psa_58:7); or as wax (see the notes at Psa_68:2). Their wrath shall be of no avail, for they themselves shall soon disappear.

The desire of the wicked shall perish – He shall not be able to accomplish his desire, or to carry out his purposes. He shall be disappointed, and all his cherished plans will come to nought. This is in strong contrast with what is said in the psalm would occur to the righteous. They would be prospered and happy; they would be able to carry out their plans; they would be respected while living, and remembered when dead; they would find God interposing in their behalf in the darkest hours; they would be firm and calm in the day of danger and of trouble; they would put their trust in the Lord, and all would be well. Surely there is an advantage in our world in being a friend of God.

I Like Your Quote….

Amidst all the hubbub about Chicago losing the 2016 Olympic bid from both ends of the political spectrum, allow me to inject a note of reality:

You don’t lose a contract bid in the first round unless you made a lousy bid in the first place.

Nuff said.

Epistle of James Chapter 2:1-13 Antique Commentary Quotes

John Calvin
Jas 2:1
This reproof seems at first sight to be hard and unreasonable; for it is one of the duties of courtesy, not to be neglected, to honor those who are elevated in the world. Further, if respect of persons be vicious, servants are to be freed from all subjection; for freedom and servitude are deemed by Paul as conditions of life. The same must be thought of magistrates. But the solution of these questions is not difficult, if what James writes is not separated. For he does not simply disapprove of honor being paid to the rich, but that this should not be done in a way so as to despise or reproach the poor; and this will appear more clearly, when he proceeds to speak of the rule of love.

Let us therefore remember that the respect of persons here condemned is that by which the rich is so extolled, wrong is done to the poor, which also he shews clearly by the context and surely ambitions is that honor, and full of vanity, which is shewn to the rich to the contempt of the poor. Nor is there a doubt but that ambition reigns and vanity also, when the masks of this world are alone in high esteem. We must remember this truth, that he is to be counted among the heirs of God’s kingdom, who disregards the reprobate and honors those who fear God. (Psa_15:4.)

Here then is the contrary vice condemned, that is, when from respect alone to riches, anyone honors the wicked, and as it has been said, dishonors the good. If then thou shouldest read thus, “He sins who respects the rich,” the sentence would be absurd; but if as follows, “He sins who honors the rich alone and despises the poor, and treats him with contempt,” it would be a pious and true doctrine.

1Have not the faith, etc., with respect of persons. He means that the respect of persons is inconsistent with the faith of Christ, so that they cannot be united together, and rightly so; for we are by faith united into one body, in which Christ holds the primacy. When therefore the pomps of the world become preeminent so as to cover over what Christ is, it is evident that faith hath but little vigor.

In rendering τὢς δόξης, “on account of esteem,” (ex opinione,) I have followed Erasmus; though the old interpreter cannot be blamed, who has rendered it “glory,” for the word means both; and it may be fitly applied to Christ, and that according to the drift of the passage. For so great is the brightness of Christ, that it easily extinguishes all the glories of the world, if indeed it irradiates our eyes. It hence follows, that Christ is little esteemed by us, when the admiration of worldly glory lays hold on us. But the other exposition is also very suitable, for when the esteem or value of riches or of honors dazzles our eyes, the truth is suppressed, which ought alone to prevail. To sit becomingly means to sit honorably.

Adam Clarke
Jas 2:1
My brethren, have not – This verse should be read interrogatively: My brethren, do ye not make profession of the faith or religion of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ with acceptance of persons? That is, preferring the rich to the poor merely because of their riches, and not on account of any moral excellence, personal piety, or public usefulness. Πιστις, faith, is put here for religion; and της δοξης, of glory, should, according to some critics, be construed with it as the Syriac and Coptic have done. Some connect it with our Lord Jesus Christ – the religion of our glorious Lord Jesus Christ. Others translate thus, the faith of the glory of our Lord Jesus. There are many various readings in the MSS. and versions on this verse: the meaning is clear enough, though the connection be rather obscure.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:1
My brethren – Perhaps meaning brethren in two respects – as Jews, and as Christians. In both respects the form of address would be proper.
Have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ – Faith is the distinguishing thing in the Christian religion, for it is this by which man is justified, and hence, it comes to be put for religion itself. Notes, 1Ti_3:9. The meaning here is, “do not hold such views of the religion of Christ, as to lead you to manifest partiality to others on account of their difference of rank or outward circumstances.”

The Lord of glory – The glorious Lord; he who is glorious himself, and who is encompassed with glory. See the notes at 1Co_2:8. The design here seems to be to show that the religion of such a Lord should be in no way dishonored.

With respect of persons – That is, you are not to show respect of persons, or to evince partiality to others on account of their rank, wealth, apparel, etc. Compare Pro_24:23; Pro_28:21; Lev_19:15; Deu_1:17; Deu_10:17; 2Ch_19:7; Psa_40:4. See the subject explained in the Act_10:34 note; Rom_2:11 note.

John Gill
Jas 2:2 For if there come unto your assembly,…. The place of religious worship where saints are assembled together for that purpose; though some think a civil court of judicature is intended, and to which the context seems to incline; see Jam_2:6

a man with a gold ring; on his finger, which shows him to be a man of dignity and wealth; so those of the senatorian and equestrian orders among the Romans were distinguished from the common people by wearing gold rings; though in time the use of them became promiscuous (q); the ancients used to wear but one (r), as here but one is mentioned; and only freemen, not servants, might wear it: however, by this circumstance, the apostle describes a rich man, adding,

in goodly apparel; gay clothing, bright shining garments, glistering with gold and silver, very rich and costly, as well as whole, neat, and clean:

and there come in also a poor man in vile raiment; mean and despicable, filthy and ragged: in the courts of judicature with the Jews, two men, who were at law with one another, might not have different apparel on while they were in court, and their cause was trying: their law runs thus (s);

“two adversaries (at law with each other), if one of them is clothed “with precious garments”, (Myrqy Mydgb, “goodly apparel”,) and the other is clothed with בגדים בזויין, “vile raiment”, (the judge) says to the honourable person, either clothe him as thou art, while thou contendest with him, or be clothed as he is, that ye may be alike, or on an equal foot.”

(q) Alex. ab Alex. Genial. Dier. l. 2. c. 29. (r) Isidor. Hispal. Originum, l. 19. c. 32. p. 171. (s) Maimon. Hilchot Sanhedrin, c. 21. sect. 2.

Adam Clarke
Jas 2:2
If there come unto your assembly – Εις την συναγωγην· Into the synagogue. It appears from this that the apostle is addressing Jews who frequented their synagogues, and carried on their worship there and judicial proceedings, as the Jews were accustomed to do. Our word assembly does not express the original; and we cannot suppose that these synagogues were at this time occupied with Christian worship, but that the Christian Jews continued to frequent them for the purpose of hearing the law and the prophets read, as they had formerly done, previously to their conversion to the Christian faith. But St. James may refer here to proceedings in a court of justice.

With a gold ring, in goodly apparel – The ring on the finger and the splendid garb were proofs of the man’s opulence; and his ring and his coat, not his worth, moral good qualities, or the righteousness of his cause, procured him the respect of which St. James speaks.

There come in also a poor man – In ancient times petty courts of judicature were held in the synagogues, as Vitringa has sufficiently proved, De Vet. Syn. l. 3, p. 1, c. 11; and it is probable that the case here adduced was one of a judicial kind, where, of the two parties, one was rich and the other poor; and the master or ruler of the synagogue, or he who presided in this court, paid particular deference to the rich man, and neglected the poor man; though, as plaintiff and defendant, they were equal in the eye of justice, and should have been considered so by an impartial judge.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:2
For if there come into your assembly – Margin, as in Greek, “synagogue.” It is remarkable that this is the only place in the New Testament where the word “synagogue” is applied to the Christian church. It is probably employed here because the apostle was writing to those who had been Jews; and it is to be presumed that the word synagogue would be naturally used by the early converts from Judaism to designate a Christian place of worship, or a Christian congregation, and it was probably so employed until it was superseded by a word which the Gentile converts would be more likely to employ, and which would, in fact, be better and more expressive – the word church. The word “synagogue” (συναγωγὴν sunagogen) would properly refer to the whole congregation, considered as “assembled together,” without respect to the question whether all were truly pious or not; the word “church” (εκκλησία ekklesia) would refer to the assembly convened for worship as called out, referring to the fact that they were called out from the world, and convened as worshippers of God, and would, therefore, be more applicable to a body of spiritual worshippers.

It is probable that the Christian church was modelled, in its general arrangements, after the Jewish synagogue; but there would be obviously some disadvantages in retaining the name, as applicable to Christian worship. It would be difficult to avoid the associations connected with the name, and hence it was better to adopt some other name which would be free from this disadvantage, and on which might be engrafted all the ideas which it was necessary to connect with the notion of the Christian organization. Hence the word “church,” liable to no such objection as that of “synagogue,” was soon adopted, and ultimately prevailed, though the passage before us shows that the word “synagogue” would be in some places, and for a time, employed to designate a Christian congregation. We should express the idea here by saying. “If a man of this description should come into the church.”

A man with a gold ring – Indicative of rank or property. Rings were common ornaments of the rich; and probably then, as now, of those who desired to be esteemed to be rich. For proof that they were commonly worn, see the quotations in Wetstein, in loc.

In goodly apparel – Rich and splendid dress. Compare Luk_16:19.

A poor man in vile raiment – The Greek here is, filthy, foul; the meaning of the passage is, in sordid, shabby clothes. The reference here seems to be, not to those who commonly attended on public worship, or who were members of the church, but to those who might accidentally drop in to witness the services of Christians. See 1Co_14:24.

John Gill
Jas 2:3 And ye have respect to him that wears the gay clothing,…. Take notice of him, and show favour to him, to the neglect and contempt of the other. This is an instance of respect of persons condemned and dissuaded from:

and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place; the best place; whether it be in a religious assembly, or in a civil court of judicature:

and say to the poor, stand thou there; or in a lower and meaner place:

or sit thou here under my footstool; this also was contrary to the Jewish canons (t), that one should sit, and another stand, while their cause was trying; the law runs thus:

“one shall not sit, and another stand, but both shall stand; but if the sanhedrim, or court, please to let them sit, they sit; but one does not sit above, and the other below; but one by the side of the other.”

(t) Maimon. ib. sect. 3. vid. T. Bab. Shebuot, fol. 30. 1.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:3
And ye have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing – If you show him superior attention on account of his rich and gay apparel, giving him a seat by himself, and treating others with neglect or contempt. Religion does not forbid proper respect to rank, to office, to age, or to distinguished talents and services, though even in such cases it does not require that we should feel that such persons have any peculiar claims to salvation, or that they are not on a level with all others, as sinners before God; it does not forbid that a man who has the means of procuring for himself an eligible pew in a church should be permitted to do so; but it requires that men shall be regarded and treated according to their moral worth, and not according to their external adorning; that all shall be considered as in fact on a level before God, and entitled to the privileges which grow out of the worship of the Creator. A stranger coming into any place of worship, no matter what his rank, dress, or complexion, should be treated with respect, and everything should be done that can be to win his heart to the service of God.

And say unto him, Sit thou here in a good place – Margin, as in Greek, “well” or “seemly;” that is, in an honorable place near the pulpit; or in some elevated place where he would be conspicuous. The meaning is, you treat him with distinguished marks of respect on the first appearance, merely from the indications that he is a rich man, without knowing any thing about his character.

And say to the poor, Stand thou there – Without even the civility of offering him a seat at all. This may be presumed not often to occur in a Christian church; yet it practically does sometimes, when no disposition is evinced to furnish a stranger with a seat.

Or sit here under my footstool – Perhaps some seats in the places of worship were raised, so that even the footstool would be elevated above a lower seat. The meaning is, that he would be treated as if he were not worth the least attention.

John Calvin
Jas 2:4
4Are ye not then partial in yourselves? or, are ye not condemned in yourselves. This may be read affirmatively as well as interrogatively, but the sense would be the same, for he amplifies the fault by this, that they took delight and indulged themselves in so great a wickedness. If it be read interrogatively, the meaning is, “Does not your own conscience hold you convicted, so that you need no other judge?” If the affirmative be preferred, it is the same as though he had said, “This evil also happens, that ye think not that ye sin, nor know that your thoughts are so wicked as they are.”

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:4
Are ye not then partial in yourselves? – Among yourselves. Do you not show that you are partial?

And are become judges of evil thoughts – There has been considerable difference of opinion respecting this passage, yet the sense seems not to be difficult. There are two ideas in it: one is, that they showed by this conduct that they took it upon themselves to be judges, to pronounce on the character of men who were strangers, and on their claims to respect (Compare Mat_7:1); the other is, that in doing this, they were not guided by just rules, but that they did it under the influence of improper “thoughts.” They did it not from benevolence; not from a desire to do justice to all according to their moral character; but from that improper feeling which leads us to show honor to men on account of their external appearance, rather than their real worth. The wrong in the case was in their presuming to “judge” these strangers at all, as they practically did by making this distinction, and then by doing it under the influence of such an unjust rule of judgment. The sense is, that we have no right to form a decisive judgment of men on their first appearance, as we do when we treat one with respect and the other not; and that when we make up our opinion in regard to them, it should be by some other means of judging than the question whether they can wear gold rings, and dress well, or not. Beza and Doddridge render this, “ye become judges who reason ill.”

John Calvin
Jas 2:5
5Hearken, my beloved brethren. He proves now by a two-fold argument, that they acted preposterously, when for the sake of the rich they despised the poor: The first is, that it is unbecoming and disgraceful to cast down those whom God exalts, and to treat reproachfully those whom he honors. As God honors the poor, then every one who repudiates them, reverses the order of God. The other argument is taken from common experience; for since the rich are for the most part vexatious to the good and innocent, it is very unreasonable to render such a reward for the wrongs they do, so that they should be more approved by us than the poor, who aid us more than they wrong us. We shall now see how he proceeds with these two points.

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world? Not indeed alone, but he wished to begin with them, that he might beat down the pride of the rich. This is also what Paul says, that God hath chosen, not many noble, not many mighty in the world, but those who are weak, that he might make ashamed such as are strong (1Co_1:25.) In short, though God pours forth his grace on the rich in common with the poor, yet his will is to prefer these to those, that the mighty might learn not to flatter themselves, and that the ignoble and the obscure might ascribe in what they are to the mercy of God, and that both might be trained up to meekness and humility.

The rich in faith are not those who abound in the greatness of faith, but such as God has enriched with the various gifts of his Spirit, which we receive by faith. For, doubtless, since the Lord deals bountifully with all, every one becomes partaker of his gifts according to the measure of his own faith. If, then, we are empty or needy, that proves the deficiency of our faith; for if we only enlarge the bosom of faith, God is always ready to fill it.

He says, that a kingdom is promised to those who love God: not that the promise depends on love; but he reminds us that we are called by God unto the hope of eternal life, on this condition and to this end, that we may love him. Then the end, and not the beginning, is here pointed out.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:5
Hearken, my beloved brethren – The apostle now proceeds to show that the rich, as such, had no special claim on their favor, and that the poor in fact might be made more entitled to esteem than they were. For a view of the arguments by which he does this, compare the analysis of the chapter.

Hath not God chosen the poor of this world? – Those who are poor so far as this world is concerned, or those who have not wealth. This is the first argument which the apostle suggests why the poor should not be treated with neglect. It is, that God has had special reference to them in choosing those who should be his children. The meaning is not that he is not as willing to save the rich as the poor, for he has no partiality; but that there are circumstances in the condition of the poor which make it more likely that they will embrace the offers of the gospel than the rich; and that in fact the great mass of believers is taken from those who are in comparatively humble life. Compare the notes at 1Co_1:26-28. The fact that God has chosen one to be an “heir of the kingdom” is as good a reason now why he should not be treated with neglect, as it was in the times of the apostles.

Rich in faith – Though poor in this world’s goods, they are rich in a higher and more important sense. They have faith in God their Saviour; and in this world of trial and of sin, that is a more valuable possession than piles of hoarded silver or gold. A man who has that is sure that he will have all that is truly needful for him in this world and the next; a man who has it not, though he may have the wealth of Croesus, will be utterly without resources in respect to the great wants of his existence.

“Give what thou wilt, without thee we are poor; And with thee rich, take what thou wilt away.”

Faith in God the Saviour will answer more purposes, and accomplish more valuable ends for man, than the wealth of the Indies could: and this the poor may have as well as the rich. Compare Rev_2:9.
And heirs of the kingdom … – Margin, “that.” Compare the notes at Mat_5:3.

John Calvin
Jas 2:6
6Do not the rich. He seems to instigate them to vengeance by bringing forward the unjust rule of the rich, in order that they who were unjustly treated, might render like for like: and yet we are everywhere bid to do good to those who injure us. But the object of James was another; for he only wished to shew that they were without reason or judgment who through ambition honored their executioners, and in the meantime injured their own friends, at least those from whom they never suffered any wrong. For hence appeared more fully their vanity, that they were induced by no acts of kindness: they only admired the rich, because they were rich; nay, they servilely flattered those whom they found, to their own loss, to be unjust and cruel.

There are, indeed, some of the rich who are just, and meek, and hate all unrighteousness; but few of such men are to be found. James, then, mentions what for the most part usually happens, and what daily experience proves true. For as men commonly exercise their power in doing what is wrong, it hence happens, that the more power any one has, the worse he is, and the more unjust towards his neighbors. The more careful then ought the rich to be, lest they should contract any of the contagion which everywhere prevails among those of their own rank.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:6
But ye have despised the poor – Koppe reads this as an interrogation: “Do ye despise the poor?” Perhaps it might be understood somewhat ironically: “You despise the poor, do you, and are disposed to honor the rich! Look then, and see how the rich treat you, and see whether you have so much occasion to regard them with any peculiar respect.” The object of the apostle is to fix the attention on the impropriety of that partiality which many were disposed to show to the rich, by reminding them that the rich had never evinced towards them any such treatment as to lay the foundation of a claim to the honor which they were disposed to render them.

Do not rich men oppress you? – Referring probably to something in their conduct which existed particularly then. The meaning is not that they oppressed the poor as such, but that they oppressed those whom James addressed. It is probable that then, as since, a considerable portion of those who were Christians were in fact poor, and that this would have all the force of a personal appeal; but still the particular thought is, that it was a characteristic of the rich and the great, whom they were disposed peculiarly to honor, to oppress and crush the poor. The Greek here is very expressive: “Do they not imperiously lord it over you?” The statement here will apply with too much force to the rich in every age.

And draw you before the judgment-seats – That is, they are your persecutors rather than your friends. It was undoubtedly the case that many of the rich were engaged in persecuting Christians, and that on various pretences they dragged them before the judicial tribunals.

John Calvin
Jas 2:7
7Worthy, or good name. I doubt not but that he refers here to the name of God and of Christ. And he says, by, or, on, the which ye are called; not in prayer, as Scripture is wont sometimes to speak, but by profession; as the name of a father, in Gen_48:16, is said to be called on his offspring, and in Isa_4:1, the name of a husband is called on the wife. It is, then, the same as though he had said, “The good name in which ye glory, or which ye deem it an honor to be called by; but if they proudly calumniate the glory of God, how unworthy are they of being honored by Christians!”

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:7
Do they not blaspheme that worthy name? – This is another argument to show that the rich had no special claim to the honor which they were disposed to show them. The “worthy name” here referred to is, doubtless, the name of the Saviour. The thing here affirmed would, of course, accompany persecution. They who persecuted Christians, would revile the name which they bore. This has always occurred. But besides this, it is no improbable supposition that many of those who were not disposed to engage in open persecution, would revile the name of Christ, by speaking contemptuously of him and his religion. This has been sufficiently common in every age of the world, to make the description here not improper. And yet nothing has been more remarkable than the very thing adverted to here by James, that notwithstanding this, many who profess to be Christians have been more disposed to treat even such persons with respect and attention than they have their own brethren, if they were poor; that they have cultivated the favor, sought the friendship, desired the smiles, aped the manners, and coveted the society of such persons, rather than the friendship and the favor of their poorer Christian brethren. Even though they are known to despise religion in their hearts, and not to be sparing of their words of reproach and scorn towards Christianity; though they are known to be blasphemers, and to have the most thorough contempt for serious, spiritual religion, yet there is many a professing Christian who would prefer to be at a party given by such persons than at a prayer-meeting where their poorer brethren are assembled; who would rather be known by the world to be the associates and friends of such persons, than of those humble believers who can make no boast of rank or wealth, and who are looked down upon with contempt by the great and the gay.

John Calvin
Jas 2:8
Now follows a plainer declaration; for he expressly points out the cause of the last reproof, for they were officiously attentive to the rich, not from love, but on the contrary, from a vain desire of attaining their favor: And it is in anticipation, by which he obviated an excuse on the other side; for they might have objected and said, that he ought not to be blamed, who humbly submiteth himself to the unworthy. James, indeed, concedes that this is true, but he shews that it was falsely pretended by them, because they shewed this submission of homage, not from love to their neighbors, but from respect of persons.

In the first clause, then, he acknowledges as right and praiseworthy, as the duties of love which we perform towards our neighbors. In the second, he denies that the ambitious respect of persons ought to be deemed as of this kind, for it widely differs from what the law prescribes. And the hinge of this answer turns on the words “neighbor” and “respect of persons,” as though he had said, “If you pretend that there is a sort of love in what you do, this may be easily disproved; for God bids us to love our neighbors, and not to shew respect of persons.” Besides, this word “neighbor” includes all mankind: he, then, who says, that a very few, according to his own fancy, ought to be honored, and others passed by, does not keep the law of God, but yields to the depraved desires of his own heart. God expressly commends to us strangers and enemies, and all, even the most contemptible. To this doctrine the respect of persons is wholly contrary. Hence, rightly does James assert, that respect of persons is inconsistent with love.

8If ye fulfill the royal law. The law here I take simply as the rule of life; and to fulfill, or perform it, is to keep it with real integrity of heart, and as they say, roundly, (rotunde;) and he sets such a keeping in opposition to a partial observance of it. It is said, indeed, to be a royal law, as it is the royal way, or road; that is, plain, straight, and level, which, by implication, is set in opposition to sinuous by-paths and windings.

Allusion however is made, as I think, to servile obedience which they rendered to the rich, when they might, by serving in sincerity their neighbors, be not only free men, but live as kings.

Adam Clarke
Jas 2:8
The royal law – Νομον βασιλικον. This epithet, of all the New Testament writers, is peculiar to James; but it is frequent among the Greek writers in the sense in which it appears St. James uses it. Βασιλικος, royal, is used to signify any thing that is of general concern, is suitable to all, and necessary for all, as brotherly love is. This commandment; Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, is a royal law, not only because it is ordained of God, and proceeds from his kingly authority over men, but because it is so useful, suitable, and necessary to the present state of man; and as it was given us particularly by Christ himself, Joh_13:34; Joh_15:12, who is our King, as well as Prophet and Priest, it should ever put us in mind of his authority over us, and our subjection to him. As the regal state is the most excellent for secular dignity and civil utility that exists among men, hence we give the epithet royal to whatever is excellent, noble, grand, or useful.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:8
If ye fulfil the royal law – That is, the law which he immediately mentions requiring us to love our neighbor as ourselves. It is called a “royal law,” or kingly law, on account of its excellence or nobleness; not because it is ordained by God as a king, but because it has some such prominence and importance among other laws as a king has among other men; that is, it is majestic, noble, worthy of veneration.

It is a law which ought to govern and direct us in all our intercourse with men – as a king rules his subjects.
According to the Scripture, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself – Lev_19:18. Compare Mat_19:19. See it explained by the Saviour, in the parable of the good Samaritan, Luk_10:25-37. In regard to its meaning, see the notes at Mat_19:19.

Ye do well – That is, “if you fairly comply with the spirit of this law, you do all that is required of you in regulating your intercourse with others. You are to regard all persons as your “neighbors,” and are to treat them according to their real worth; you are not to be influenced in judging of them, or in your treatment of them, by their apparel, or their complexion, or the circumstances of their birth, but by the fact that they are fellow-beings.” This is another reason why they should not show partiality in their treatment of others, for if, in the true sense, they regarded all others as “neighbors,” they would treat no one with neglect or contempt.

A.T. Robertson
Jas 2:8
The royal law (nomon basilikon). Old adjective for royal, regal (from basileus king), as of an officer (Joh_4:46). But why applied to nomos? The Romans had a phrase, lex regia, which came from the king when they had kings. The absence of the article is common with nomos (Jam_4:11). It can mean a law fit to guide a king, or such as a king would choose, or even the king of laws. Jesus had said that on the law of love hang all the law and the prophets (Mat_22:40), and he had given the Golden Rule as the substance of the Law and the prophets (Mat_7:12). This is probably the royal law which is violated by partiality (Jam_2:3). It is in accord with the Scripture quoted here (Lev_19:18) and ratified by Jesus (Luk_10:28).

John Calvin
Jas 2:9
When, in the second place, he says, that those who had respect of persons were convinced, or reprovedby the law, the law is taken according to its proper meaning. For since we are bidden by God’s command to embrace all mortals, every one who, with a few exceptions, rejects all the rest, breaks the bond of God, and inverts also his order, and is, therefore, rightly called a transgressor of the law.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:9
But if ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin – You transgress the plain law of God, and do wrong. See the references on Jam_2:1.

And are convinced of the law as transgressors – Greek “By the law.” The word convinced is now used in a somewhat different sense from what it was formerly. It now commonly refers to the impression made on a man’s mind by showing him the truth of a thing which before was doubted, or in respect to which the evidence was not clear. A man who doubted the truth of a report or a proposition may be convinced or satisfied of its truth; a man who has done wrong, though he supposed he was doing what was proper, may be convinced of his error. So a man may be convinced that he is a sinner, though before he had no belief of it, and no concern about it; and this may produce in his mind the feeling which is technically known as conviction, producing deep distress and anguish. See the notes at Joh_16:8. Here, however, the word does not refer so much to the effect produced on the mind itself, as to the fact that the law would hold such an one to be guilty; that is, the law pronounces what is done to be wrong. Whether they would be personally convinced of it, and troubled about it as convicted sinners, would be a different question, and one to which the apostle does not refer; for his object is not to show that they would be troubled about it, but to show that the law of God condemned this course, and would hold them to be guilty. The argument here is not from the personal distress which this course would produce in their own minds, but from the fact that the law of God condemned it.

George Haydock
Jas 2:10 Is become guilty of all. It is certain these words are not to be taken merely according to the letter, nor in the sense which at first they seem to represent, as if a man by transgressing one precept of the law transgressed and broke all the rest: this appears by the very next verse, that a man may commit murder by killing another, and not commit adultery. And it is certain, as St. Augustine observes, that all sins are not equal, as the Stoic philosophers pretended. See St. Augustine, Epist. clxvii, (nov. ed. tom. 2, p. 595) where he consults St. Jerome on this very place out of St. James, and tells us that such a man may be said to be guilty of all, because by one deadly sin he acts against charity,[3] (which is the love of God and of our neighbour) upon which depends the whole law and all its precepts; so that by breaking one precept, he loseth the habit of charity, and maketh the keeping, or not breaking of all the rest, unprofitable to him. Secondly, it may be added, that all the precepts of the law are to be considered as one total and entire law, and as it were a chain of precepts, where by breaking one link of this chain the whole chain is broken, or the integrity of the law, consisting of a collection of precepts. Thirdly, it may be said, that he who breaks any one precept, contemns the authority of the lawgiver, who enjoined them all, and under pain of being for ever excluded from his sight and enjoyment. A sinner, therefore, by a grievous offence against any one precept, forfeits his heavenly inheritance, becomes liable to eternal punishments, as if he had transgressed all the rest: not but that the punishments in hell shall be greater against those who have been greater sinners, as greater shall be the reward in heaven for those who have lived with greater sanctity and perfection. (Witham) — Guilty, &c. That is, he becomes a transgressor of the law in such a manner, that the observing of all other points will not avail him to salvation; for he despises the lawgiver, and breaks through the great and general commandment of charity, even by one mortal sin. (Challoner)

John Calvin
Jas 2:10
10For whosoever shall keep the whole law. What alone he means is, that God will not be honored with exceptions, nor will he allow us to cut off from his law what is less pleasing to us. At the first view, this sentence seems hard to some, as though the apostle countenanced the paradox of the Stoics, which makes all sins equal, and as though he asserted that he who offends in one thing ought to be punished equally with him whose whole life has been sinful and wicked. But it is evident from the context that no such thing entered into his mind.

For we must always observe the reason anything is said. He denies that our neighbors are loved when a part only of them is through ambition chosen, and the rest neglected. This he proves, because it is no obedience to God, when it is not rendered equally according to his command. Then as the rule of God is plain and complete or perfect, so we ought to regard completeness; so that none of us should presumptuously separate what he has joined together. Let there be, therefore, a uniformity, if we desire rightly to obey God. As, for instance, were a judge to punish ten thefts, and leave one man unpunished, he would betray the obliquity of his mind, for he would thus shew himself indignant against men rather than against crimes; because what he condemns in one he absolves in another.

We now, then, understand the design of James, that is, that if we cut off from God’s law what is less agreeable to us, though in other parts we may be obedient, yet we be come guilty of all, because in one particular thing we violate the whole law. And though he accommodates what is said to the subject in hand, it is yet taken from a general principle, — that God has prescribed to us a rule of life, which it is not lawful for us to mutilate. For it is not said of a part of the law, “This is the way, walk ye in it;” nor does the law promise a reward except to universal obedience.
Foolish, then, are the schoolmen, who deem partial righteousness, as they call it, to be meritorious; for this passage and many others, clearly shew that there is no righteousness except in a perfect obedience to the law.

Adam Clarke
Jas 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law, etc. – This is a rabbinical form of speech. In the tract Shabbath, fol. 70, where they dispute concerning the thirty-nine works commanded by Moses, Rabbi Yochanan says: But if a man do the whole, with the omission of one, he is guilty of the whole, and of every one. In Bammidar rabba, sec. 9, fol. 200, and in Tanchum, fol. 60, there is a copious example given, how an adulteress, by that one crime, breaks all the ten commandments, and by the same mode of proof any one sin may be shown to be a breach of the whole decalogue. The truth is, any sin is against the Divine authority; and he who has committed one transgression is guilty of death; and by his one deliberate act dissolves, as far as he can, the sacred connection that subsists between all the Divine precepts and the obligation which he is under to obey, and thus casts off in effect his allegiance to God. For, if God should be obeyed in any one instance, he should be obeyed in all, as the authority and reason of obedience are the same in every case; he therefore who breaks one of these laws is, in effect, if not in fact, guilty of the whole. But there is scarcely a more common form of speech among the rabbins than this, for they consider that any one sin has the seeds of all others in it. See a multitude of examples in Schoettgen.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:10
For whosoever shall keep the whole law – All except the single point referred to. The apostle does not say that this in fact ever did occur, but he says that if it should, and yet a man should have failed in only one particular, he must be judged to be guilty. The case supposed seems to be that of one who claimed that he had kept the whole law. The apostle says that even if this should be admitted for the time to be true in all other respects, yet, if he had failed in any one particular – in showing respect to persons, or in anything else – he could not but be held to be a transgressor, The design of this is to show the importance of yielding universal obedience, and to impress upon the mind a sense of the enormity of sin from the fact that the violation of any one precept is in fact an offence against the whole law of God. The whole law here means all the law of God; all that he has required; all that he has given to regulate us in our lives.

And yet offend in one point – In one respect; or shall violate any one of the commands included in the general word law. The word offend here means, properly, to stumble, to fall; then to err, or fail in duty. See the notes at Mat_5:29; Mat_26:31.

He is guilty of all – He is guilty of violating the law as a whole, or of violating the law of God as such; he has rendered it impossible that he should be justified and saved by the law. This does not affirm that he is as guilty as if he had violated every law of God; or that all sinners are of equal grade because all have violated some one or more of the laws of God; but the meaning is, that he is guilty of violating the law of God as such; he shows that be has not the true spirit of obedience; he has exposed himself to the penalty of the law, and made it impossible now to be saved by it. His acts of obedience in other respects, no matter how many, will not screen him from the charge of being a violator of the law, or from its penalty. He must be held and treated as a transgressor for that offence, however upright he may be in other respects, and must meet the penalty of the law as certainly as though he had violated every commandment.

One portion of the law is as much binding as another, and if a man violates any one plain commandment, he sets at nought the authority of God. This is a simple principle which is everywhere recognised, and the apostle means no more by it than occurs every day. A man who has stolen a horse is held to be a violator of the law, no matter in how many other respects he has kept it, and the law condemns him for it. He cannot plead his obedience to the law in other things as a reason why he should not be punished for this sin; but however upright he may have been in general, even though it may have been through a long life, the law holds him to be a transgressor, and condemns him. He is as really condemned, and as much thrown from the protection of law, as though he had violated every command. So of murder, arson, treason, or any other crime. The law judges a man for what he has done in this specific case, and he cannot plead in justification of it that he has been obedient in other things.

It follows, therefore, that if a man has been guilty of violating the law of God in any one instance, or is not perfectly holy, he cannot be justified and saved by it, though he should have obeyed it in every other respect, any more than a man who has been guilty of murder can be saved from the gallows because he has, in other respects, been a good citizen, a kind father, an honest neighbor, or has been compassionate to the poor and the needy. He cannot plead his act of truth in one case as an offset to the sin of falsehood in another; he cannot defend himself from the charge of dishonesty in one instance by the plea that he has been honest in another; he cannot urge the fact that he has done a good thing as a reason why he should not be punished for a bad one. He must answer for the specific charge against him, and none of these other things can be an offset against this one act of wrong. Let it be remarked, also, in respect to our being justified by obedience to the law, that no man can plead before God that he has kept all his law except in one point. Who is there that has not, in spirit at least, broken each one of the ten commandments? The sentiment here expressed by James was not new with him. It was often expressed by the Jewish writers, and seems to have been an admitted principle among the Jews. See Wetstein, in loc., for examples.

John Calvin
Jas 2:11
11For he that said, or he who hath said. This is a proof of the former verse; because the Lawgiver is to be considered rather than each particular precept apart. The righteousness of God, as an indivisible body, is contained in the law. Whosoever, then, transgresses one article of the Law, destroys, as far as he can, the righteousness of God. Besides, as in one part, so in every part, God’s will is to try our obedience. Hence a transgressor of the law is every one who offends as to any one of its commandments according to this saying, “Cursed is he who fulfills not all things.” (Deu_27:26.)

We further see, that the transgressor of the law, and the guilty of all, mean the same according to James.

Adam Clarke
Jas 2:11
For he that said – That is, the authority that gave one commandment gave also the rest; and he who breaks one resists this authority; so that the breach of any one commandment may be justly considered a breach of the whole law. It was a maxim also among the Jewish doctors that, if a man kept any one commandment carefully, though he broke all the rest, he might assure himself of the favor of God; for while they taught that “He who transgresses all the precepts of the law has broken the yoke, dissolved the covenant, and exposed the law to contempt, and so has he done who has broken even one precept,” (Mechilta, fol. 5, Yalcut Simeoni, part 1, fol. 59), they also taught, “that he who observed any principal command was equal to him who kept the whole law;” (Kiddushin, fol. 39); and they give for example, “If a man abandon idolatry, it is the same as if he had fulfilled the whole law,” (Ibid., fol. 40.) To correct this false doctrine James lays down that in the 11th verse. Thus they did and undid.

John Calvin
Jas 2:12
12So speak ye. Some give this explanation, that as they flattered themselves too much, they are summoned to the right tribunal; for men absolve themselves according to their own notions, because they withdraw themselves from the judgment of the divine law. He then reminds them that all deeds and words are there to be accounted for, because God will judge the world according to his law. As, however, such a declaration might have smitten them with immoderate terror, to correct or mitigate what they might have thought severe, he adds, the law of liberty. For we know what Paul says, “Whosoever are under the law are under a curse.”(Gal_3:10.) Hence the judgment of the law in itself is condemnation to eternal death; but he means by the word liberty, that we are freed from the rigor of the law.

This meaning is not altogether unsuitable, though if one examines more minutely what immediately follows, he will see that James meant another thing; the sense is as though he had said, “Except ye wish to undergo the rigor of the law, ye must be less rigid towards your neighbors; for the law of liberty is the same as the mercy of God, which delivers us from the curse of the law” And so this verse ought to be read with what follows, where he speaks of the duty of bearing with infirmities. And doubtless the whole passage thus reads well: “Since none of us can stand before God, except we be delivered and freed from the strict rigor of the law, we ought so to act, that we may not through too much severity exclude the indulgence or mercy of God, of which we all have need to the last.”

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:12
So speak ye, and so do, as they that shall be judged by the law of liberty – On the phrase, “the law of liberty,” see the notes at Jam_1:25. Compare the notes at Jam_4:11. The meaning is, that in all our conduct we are to act under the constant impression of the truth that we are soon to be brought into judgment, and that the law by which we are to be judged is that by which it is contemplated that we shall be set free from the dominion of sin. In the rule which God has laid down in his word, called “the law of liberty,” or the rule by which true freedom is to be secured, a system of religion is revealed by which it is designed that man shall be emancipated not only from one sin, but from all. Now, it is with reference to such a law that we are to be judged; that is, we shall not be able to plead on our trial that we were under a necessity of sinning, but we shall be judged under that law by which the arrangement was made that we might be free from sin. If we might be free from sin; if an arrangement was made by which we could have led holy lives, then it will be proper that we shall be judged and condemned if we are not righteous. The sense is, “In all your conduct, whatever you do or say, remember that you are to be judged, or that you are to give an impartial account; and remember also that the rule by which you are to be judged is that by which provision is made for being delivered from the dominion of sin, and brought into the freedom of the gospel.” The argument here seems to be, that he who habitually feels that he is soon to be judged by a law under which it was contemplated that he might be, and should be, free from the bondage of sin, has one of the strongest of all inducements to lead a holy life.

John Calvin
Jas 2:13
13For he shall have judgment.This is an application of the last verse to the subject in hand, which confirms altogether the second explanation which I have mentioned: for he shews, that since we stand through God’s mercy alone, we ought to shew that to those whom the Lord himself commends to us. It is, indeed, a singular commendation of kindness and benevolence, that God promises that he will be merciful to us, if we be so to our brethren: not that our mercy, how ever great it may be, shewn towards men, merits the mercy of God; but that God would have those whom he has adopted, as he is to them a kind and an indulgent Father, to bear and exhibit his image on the earth, according to the saying of Christ, “Be ye merciful, as your heavenly Father is merciful.”(Mat_5:7.)

We must notice, on the other hand, that he could denounce nothing on them more severe or more dreadful than the judgment of God. It hence follows, that all they are miserable and lost who flee not to the asylum of pardon.

And mercy rejoiceth. As though he had said, “God’s mercy alone is that which delivers us from the dread and terror of judgment.” he takes rejoicingor gloryingin the sense of being victorious or triumphant; for the judgment of condemnation is suspended over the whole world, and nothing but mercy can bring relief.

Hard and forced is the explanation of those who regard mercy as put here for the person, for men cannot properly be said to rejoice or glory against the judgment of God; but mercy itself in a manner triumphs, and alone reigns when the severity of judgment gives way; though I do not deny but that hence arises confidence in rejoicing, that is, when the faithful know that the wrath of God in a manner yields to mercy, so that being relieved by the latter, they are not overwhelmed by the former.

Adam Clarke
Jas 2:13
For he shall have judgment – He who shows no mercy to man, or, in other words, he who does not exercise himself in works of charity and mercy to his needy fellow creatures, shall receive no mercy at the hand of God; for he hath said, Blessed are the merciful, for they shall obtain mercy. The unmerciful therefore are cursed, and they shall obtain no mercy.

Mercy rejoiceth against judgment – These words are variously understood.
1. Mercy, the merciful man, the abstract for the concrete, exults over judgment, that is, he is not afraid of it, having acted according to the law of liberty, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself.
2. Ye shall be exalted by mercy above judgment.
3. For he (God) exalts mercy above judgment.
4. A merciful man rejoices rather in opportunities of showing mercy, than in acting according to strict justice.
5. In the great day, though justice might condemn every man according to the rigour of the law, yet God will cause mercy to triumph over justice in bringing those into his glory who, for his sake, had fed the hungry, clothed the naked, ministered to the sick, and visited the prisoners. See what our Lord says, Matthew 25:31-46.

In the MSS. and versions there is a considerable variety of readings on this verse, and some of the senses given above are derived from those readings. The spirit of the saying may be found in another scripture, I will have mercy and not sacrifice – I prefer works of charity and mercy to every thing else, and especially to all acts of worship. The Royal Law, Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself, should particularly prevail among men, because of the miserable state to which all are reduced by sin, so that each particularly needs the help of his brother.

Albert Barnes
Jas 2:13
For he shall have judgment without mercy, that hath showed no mercy – This is obviously an equitable principle, and is one which is everywhere found in the Bible. Pro_21:13. “Whoso stoppeth his ears at the cry of the poor, he also shall cry himself but will not be heard.” 2Sa_22:26-27, “with the merciful thou wilt show thyself merciful, and with the froward thou wilt show thyself unsavory.” Compare Psa_18:25-26; Mat_6:15; Mat_7:1-2. The idea which the apostle seems to design to convey here is, that there will certainly be a judgment, and that we must expect that it will be conducted on equitable principles; that no mercy is to be shown when the character is not such that it will be proper that it should be; and that we should habitually feel in our conduct that God will be impartial, and should frame our lives accordingly.

And mercy rejoiceth against judgment – Margin, “glorieth.” Greek Boasts, glories, or exults. The idea is that of glorying over, as where one is superior to another, or has gained a victory over another. The reference all along here is to the judgment, the trial of the great day; and the apostle is stating the principles on which the trial at that day will be conducted – on which one class shall be condemned, and the other acquitted and saved. In reference to one class, the wicked, he says that where there has been no mercy shown to others – referring to this as one evidence of piety – that is, where there is no true piety, there will be judgment without mercy; in the other case there will be, as it were, a triumph of mercy, or mercy will appear to have gained a victory over judgment. Strict justice would indeed plead for their condemnation, but the attribute of mercy will triumph, and they will be acquitted.

The attributes of mercy and justice would seem to come in conflict, but mercy would prevail. This is a true statement of the plan of salvation, and of what actually occurs in the redemption of a sinner. Justice demands, as what is her due, that the sinner should be condemned; mercy pleads that he may be saved – and mercy prevails. It is not uncommon that there seems to be a conflict between the two. In the dispensations of justice before human tribunals, this often occurs. Strict justice demands the punishment of the offender; and yet there are cases when mercy pleads, and when every man feels that it would be desirable that pardon should be extended to the guilty, and when we always rejoice if mercy triumphs. In such a case, for example, as that of Major Andre, this is strikingly seen. On the one hand, there was the undoubted proof that he was guilty; that he had been taken as a spy; that by the laws of war he ought to be put to death; that as what he had done had tended to the ruin of the American cause, and as such an act, if unpunished, would always expose an army to surprise and destruction, he ought, in accordance with the law of nations, to die.

On the other hand, there were his youth, his high attainments, his honorable connections, his brilliant hopes, all pleading that he might live, and that he might be pardoned. In the bosom of Washington, the promptings of justice and mercy thus came into collision. Both could not be gratified, and there seemed to be but one course to be pursued. His sense of justice was shown in the act by which he signed the death-warrant; his feelings of compassion in the fact that when he did it his eyes poured forth a flood of tears. How every generous feeling of our nature would have been gratified if mercy could have triumphed, and the youthful and accomplished officer could have been spared! In the plan of salvation, this does occur. Respect is done to justice, but mercy triumphs. Justice indeed pleaded for the condemnation of the sinner, but mercy interposed, and he is saved. Justice is not disregarded, for the great Redeemer of mankind has done all that is needful to uphold it; but there is the most free and full exercise of mercy, and, while the justice of God is maintained, every benevolent feeling in the breasts of all holy beings can be gratified in the salvation of countless thousands.

Look Who’s Forty….

Kind readers, I direct your attention to news of great import. My pastor, Dr. Jay Cook, turns the dreaded forty years old Friday, June 19.

We already welcomed him into prayer meeting tonight with black armbands, but I suggest that if you so choose, you might send him an e-mail at “jayc@fbcpas.net”. In particular you might send messages along these lines:

Congratulations:

1. You’ve turned forty, so now people will listen to your opinion even without the “Dr.” at the front of your name.

2. You’re a lucky man to have so nice a family as to gracefully put up with the infirmities of your advanced age.

3. I saw your blog and am pleased to see you didn’t die sometime last November from advanced years.

4. You must be so happy to come to pastor a church with such wonderful members as the Goulablogger in your declining years.

5. You look great for your age.

Condolences:

1. I’m sure your son didn’t intend to be mean when he said “Only God has more candles on his birthday cake than that.”

2. Many famous people did their best work in the later parts of life.

3. You’re not getting older… Well, actually….

4. The print in everyone’s Bibles gets smaller after forty.

5. It was a teenager who called you “Gramps” yesterday, after all.

Question:

I only offer one suggestion: “NKJV– Why?”

Oh, and you might leave a message on his blog, to convince Jay he isn’t a voice crying in the wilderness, that only he remains on the Internet.

Spamming Myself

Just an observation: Don’t you love how much spam e-mail has your own address affixed to it? My fingers must do a lot of walking during my sleep. But it must be me, because I get headers like “I want to congratulate you” from myself, and I think, “I must have sent this, because no one’s so impressed with me as me….”

After all, this little post has four “I”s , three “me”s and three “my”s.

Isaiah Chapter 55:1-13 Sunday School Notes

These are some of my notes for Sunday May 3, 2009 in the Lifeway Explore the Bible series.

Books referenced in these notes include:

1.)Brevard Childs, Isaiah, Westminster John Knox Press, 2000

2.) The Prophecy of Isaiah: An Introduction and Commentary by Alec Motyer, InterVarsity Press, 1993

3.) John N. Oswalt, Isaiah (NIV Application Commentary), Zondervan, 1993 

4.) Jewish Study Bible, edited by Berlin, Brettler, and Fishbane, Oxford University Press, 2004

Is 55:1-13
Chapter 55 is the culmination of the unit of Isaiah 40-55, and 52-55 form a little mini unit:
Chp 52 announces coming deliverance
Chp 53 details the means of deliverance
Chp 54 declares the accomplishment of deliverance
Chp 55 summons the people to participate in the deliverance

Imperatives make the first three verses intense: come, buy, eat, listen, pay attention. These verse are in general a call to Israelites to partake in the promised gifts of God, but more specifically the call relates back to Is 54:17 “servants of the LORD”, and 54:9 “days of Noah”, speaking of a new covenant.(Childs)

Jewish exegetes (Radak, ibn Ezra) think the first three verses might apply to any one seeking God, but verses 12-13 seem directed toward the Israelite exiles. “Water” is in Jewish thought a metaphor for Torah.(JSB)

Commentators have long debated whether the described gifts are physical or spiritual, but it’s more likely both spiritual and physical are meant, as in Deu 8:7, 12:15, where eating and drinking before God is delight.(Childs)

The purpose of the invitation in v. 1-3 is to gain life (v.3). What brings life is only later defined in 55:11, the divine word. This brings to mind Deu 8:3, memorably quoted by Jesus in his temptation.(Childs)

Note verse one is a bit paradoxical, for it speaks of buying, but without money and without cost. And what is bought for free is rich, for it includes wine, milk, and actual food, not just water.(Motyer)

What then is rich fare? What you learn from listening to God, as verse 2 shows. Man lives and prospers on the words from God’s mouth, Deu 8:3 again. God calls people to Himself, and those who come and listen gain spiritual life, as the more literal KJV’s “hear and your soul shall live” implies. (Motyer)

Verse 3 then explains these gifts are bestowed because of God’s “everlasting covenant” (Heb. Berit olam), a term used in Gen 9:6, Ex 31:16, Lev 24:8, Is 61:8, Jer 32:40 and 50:5, Ezek 16:60 and 37:20. “Enduring mercies to David” is only used elsewhere in 2 Chr. 6:42, but seems very tied to the language of Ps 89, which speaks of an eternal dynasty of David, a promise spoken of also in 2Sam 7; Jer 33:20-22; Ps 18:51; and 2 Chr. 6:42.(Childs)

The shocker in verse 3 is that these Davidic promises are widened, from just David and his descendants, to the whole people, and that the promise becomes not just a past promise, but a present and future one as well.(Childs)

It is good to remember that “David” in the OT frequently is shorthand for the Messiah.

Is 55:4-5
David is labeled here a “witness to the peoples, a leader and commander for the peoples”. But David himself doesn’t exactly seem to have been that, so what does the passage mean? It seems to be a new envisioning (or a more clear version of the original) role for the anointed one. David’s role was to act as witness to God’s wonders (Ps 89:6-7; 9:11-12, 18:49-50, 57:9-11, 108:3-4) And who is David? Here he is the Suffering Servant, the Messiah.(Childs, Motyer)

In v. 5 this office of David as witness is expanded to the whole people. It is the Suffering Servant of this section of Is. (chp 40-55) , who has created a seed, servants of God, who then inherit this same duty as David and the Suffering Servant: to proclaim the wonder of God to the world (Is 54:17, 65:8-9, 13,15). Again there seems to be a definite link between the Is 40-55 section with Ps 89, right down to quoting Ps 89 and its metaphors numerous times over the fifteen chapters of Isaiah.(Childs)

Is 55:6-7
Verse 6 speaks of “seeking the LORD”, not in the sense that he is lost, but rather that the seeker needs His aid, and God is not available forever. There is a limit to the time one may ask God’s aid. Thus “call to him while He is near”.

Verse 7 then explains what “seeking” and “calling” the LORD entails: repentance, a change of lifestyle. The wicked and sinful must desire to be righteous. Then the LORD will freely forgive the sinful and wicked.

Is 55:8-11
Here is the affirmation of the two calls made previously. Those who come to the LORD’s banquet, those who give up their sinful ways, are assured they will be rewarded with God’s forgiveness and joy. How do they know? Because God is God. One might read v.8-9 as an affirmation that God does not change His mind, that what he says He will do, unlike mankind. Then verses 10-11 compare God’s word, His action, His decree, to rain and snow. Both water and God’s word come from heaven, and both make the world flourish.(Oswalt)

Is 55:12-13
Another affirmation of the good that comes from following God, a sure thing, as v.8-11 have declared. “Go out” is exodus language, leaving one bitter place for a better one. “Peacefully guided” is also reminiscent of the Exodus, with its cloud and pillar of fire. Verse 13’s contrast of thorn bush vs cypress, brier vs myrtle, might be further Exodus language, representing the discipline God imposed on the Israelites as they wandered for forty years, unable to enter the Promised Land. Or it might be simply descriptive language for the normal problems and struggles of life, as compared to the joys found in a life obeying God. (Motyer)

e-Sword 9.0.1: A Bumpy Turn onto a New Road

E-sword 1.o was released almost exactly nine years ago. Since then, it has gone on to some nine million downloads and worldwide use, including an ever-increasing demand for multiple language interfaces  and support for the apocrypha/deuterocanonicals, as Christians of all nationalities and traditions have come to use the software for personal bible study.

Now at the end of April, 2009, a major change has come to e-Sword as the database engine behind the software (Access/Jet) has finally lost Microsoft support. Thus Rick Meyers, the originator of e-Sword, has changed the database underneath e-Sword with the brand-new e-Sword version 9.0.1.

What does that mean?

As the title of this post suggests, a bump while turning onto a new road. Specifically, to quote Vaughn Jacobs of the excellent e-Sword Users dot org:

“all the current modules are useless in the new version”.

Well, more accurately, all add-on modules need to be updated to the new database format. This is not a problem with “official” e-Sword modules found at e-Sword dot net and eStudy Source dot com, because Rick Meyers has already switched those over. No, the problem is with the fourteen hundred user- created modules like those collected at e-Sword Users dot org. They won’t work with e-Sword 9.0.1. And while there is work going on to convert the old format modules to the new, that’s a lot of work and very few hands.

It’s a bit of a dilemma, then. On the one hand, the new version has some excellent features, as Rick Meyers catalogues in the release notes:

“This update uses a completely different database format for all resources. Everything is faster and more reliable as a result of this change… Study Notes can be made on any verse in the Bible, now including the Orthodox Apocrypha and the Catholic Deuterocanon…You can now Export the Study Notes and Topic Notes in HTML, Word DOC and Adobe PDF file formats, in addition to the previous plain text and Rich Text formats…You can now Import both HTML and Word DOC files directly into the Study Notes and Topic Notes…Localization of the e-Sword user interface continues with the implementation of fully Unicode compliant controls.”

On the other hand, the thing that so many e-Sword users loved was the availability of so many resources under one roof, so to speak, and most of them free. The user of e-Sword 9.0.1 is going to miss many of these resources, most only temporarily.

The obvious answer to the dilemma is to wait until many resources are converted to the new format to switch over. This is not a problem for old time e-Sword users. It does affect new users interested in the wide selection of user-created modules, however, and I personally can’t give new users the obvious answer. My glitchy Internet Explorer locks up at every site where I tried downloading the setup file for the last old format e-Sword version, 8.0.6.  Maybe that’s my IE, maybe it’s the unreliability of those sites. You’ll have to discover that on your own, e-Sword users. Be careful what and where you download.

Speaking from the sidelines, as I have no special channel to Rick Meyers or the folk at e-Sword users dot org, my take on the format change is that it is partly necessitated by the sheer age of the program, and partly a solution to the long-standing issue of easy copyright infringement with user-created modules. There has always been talk of many resources that might become available for e-Sword, except that publishers take understandable exception to some e-Sword users creating and distributing modules of copyrighted works without any remuneration to the copyright holders.  I suspect the new version will curtail that capability, which will then encourage publishers to make in copyright works available for a modest price.

There is also talk of many out- of- copyright works that are all but ready for release for e-Sword, which may now see the light of day as version 9+ modules. That’s something to look forward to.

So, what is my conclusion about the big change? See the title, again. I hope that better and brighter things are ahead for e-Sword, after we break in the new “engine”, so to speak. It’s an excellent program I use almost daily, and I am only encouraged by its expansion into the non-Protestant traditions and its new multiple language interface support. These changes only make it a program for all Christians around the world, which I believe was Rick Meyers’ intention when he created the program nine years.

Top Ten List: Ten Things Not Worth My Time

A repost of a comment from Nick Norelli’s blogpost:

What’s not worth my time:

1.The vast part of what the entertainment industry puts out.

2. Almost all of the self-help section in most Christian bookstores.

3. A huge chunk of the “scholarship” in most secular bookstores.

4. Most of Christian TV and radio.

5. All but a fraction of a percent of YouTube.

6. Facebook.

7. Well over a hundred million blogs.

8. Major League Sports

9. All forms of universalism

10. Adding anything else to this list

Isaiah 7:1-16 Antique Commentary Quotes

John Calvin Isa 7:1
1.And it came to pass. Here is related a remarkable prophecy about the wonderful deliverance of Jerusalem, when it appeared to have been utterly ruined. Now the Prophet explains all the circumstances, that by means of them the miracle may be more fully displayed, and to make it manifest, that not by the wisdom or power of man, but by the favor of God, the city has been preserved. For so ungrateful were the people, that, at the close of this transaction, they would not have understood that they had been delivered by the hand of the Lord, if all the circumstances had not been expressly brought to their remembrance. And, indeed, there were very few persons who, in the hour of danger, ventured to hope what Isaiah promised; because they judged of themselves and of the state of public affairs from present appearances. In order, therefore, to make known the remarkable kindness of God, he enters into all the details, that they may perceive from what danger and from whose hand they have been delivered. Let us also understand that this kindness was conferred on ungrateful men, that the Church might be preserved, and that Christ might afterwards appear.

John Gill
Isa 7:1 And it came to pass in the days of Ahaz the son of Jotham, the son of Uzziah king of Judah,…. Here begins a new prophecy under the reign of another king; who, though a wicked king, had religious ancestors; and who are mentioned, not, as the Jewish writers (u) generally say, because it was owing to their worthiness that the enemies of Ahaz could not prevail against him; but because it was under these kings the prophet had prophesied: what is contained in the first five chapters were delivered in the times of Uzziah; and the vision in the sixth was in the times of Jotham, in the beginning of his reign; and what is said here, and in some following chapters, was in the time of Ahaz; so that this is mentioned to fix and carry on the date of the prophecy:

that Rezin the king of Syria, and Pekah, the son of Remaliah king of Israel, went up towards Jerusalem to war against it; at the latter end of Jotham’s reign, and the beginning of Ahaz’s; these two separately came up against Judah, and greatly distressed and afflicted the kingdom, slew many, and carried others captive, 2Ki_15:37 but afterwards, in the third (w) or fourth (x) year of Ahaz, as it is said, they joined together to besiege Jerusalem, which this refers to, 2Ki_16:5,

but could not prevail against it; or “he could not”; that is, according to Aben Ezra, the king of Israel, Pekah, the son of Remaliah; but, according to Kimchi, it was Rezin king of Syria, who, he says, was the principal in the war, and brought Pekah along with him; but it may very well be understood of them both, since in 2Ki_16:5, the plural number is used; “and they could not”; and so the Septuagint, Vulgate Latin, and Oriental versions here.

(u) Jarchi & Kimchi in loc. & Yalkut Simeoni, ex Bereshit Rabba, sect. 63. fol. 54. 4. (w) Yalkut Simeoni in loc. (x) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 23. p. 85. Jarchi in ver. 14.

Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown
Isa 7:1
Isaiah 7:1-9:7. Prediction of the ill success of the Syro-Israelithish invasion of Judah. Ahaz’ alliance with Assyria, and its fatal results to Judea. Yet the certainty of final representation and of the coming of Messiah.

In the Assyrian inscriptions the name of Rezin, king of Damascus, is found among the tributaries of Tiglath-pileser, of whose reign the annals of seventeen years have been deciphered. For the historical facts in this chapter, compare 2 Kings 15:37-16:9. Rezin of Syria and Pekah of Israel, as confederates, advanced against Jerusalem. In the first campaign they “smote Ahaz with a great slaughter” (2Ch_28:5). Their object was probably to unite the three kingdoms against Assyria. Egypt seems to have favored the plan, so as to interpose these confederate kingdoms between her own frontier and Assyria (compare Isa_7:18, “Egypt”; and 2Ki_17:4, Hoshea’s league with Egypt). Rezin and Pekah may have perceived Ahaz’ inclination towards Assyria rather than towards their own confederacy; this and the old feud between Israel and Judah (1Ki_12:16) occasioned their invasion of Judah. Ahaz, at the second inroad of his enemies (compare 2Ch_28:1-26 and 2Ki_15:37, with Isa_16:5), smarting under his former defeat, applied to Tiglath-pileser, in spite of Isaiah’s warning in this chapter, that he should rather rely on God; that king accordingly attacked Damascus, and slew Rezin (2Ki_16:9); and probably it was at the same time that he carried away part of Israel captive (2Ki_15:29), unless there were two assaults on Pekah – that in 2Ki_15:29, the earlier, and that in which Tiglath helped Ahaz subsequently [G. V. Smith]. Ahaz was saved at the sacrifice of Judah’s independence and the payment of a large tribute, which continued till the overthrow of Sennacherib under Hezekiah (Isa_37:37; 2Ki_16:8, 2Ki_16:17, 2Ki_16:18; 2Ch_28:20). Ahaz’ reign began about 741 b.c., and Pekah was slain in 738 [Winer].

Ahaz — In the first years of his reign the design of the two kings against Judah was carried out, which was formed in Jotham’s reign (2Ki_15:37).

Syria — Hebrew, Aram (Gen_10:22, Gen_10:23), originally the whole region between the Euphrates and Mediterranean, including Assyria, of which Syria is an abbreviation; here the region round Damascus, and along Mount Libanus.

Jerusalem — An actual siege of it took place, but was foiled (2Ki_16:5).

John Calvin
Is 7:2This passage sets before us a very bright mirror, in which we may behold the thoughtlessness of the ungodly, when they do not feel the hand of God; and, on the other hand, the fearful trembling with which they are suddenly seized, when the Lord presents to them any danger. In the midst of their prosperity they are so much at their ease that they hardly believe that they are subject to the government of God, and undoubtedly imagine that they are placed beyond the reach of all danger. Adversity stuns them in such a manner that they suddenly fall down, and their senses are so entirely overpowered by terror that they lie like people who are lifeless or bereft of their senses. Such is the punishment by which the Lord arouses them from their deep slumber. At first they appear to be firm and immovable, as if nothing could throw them down from their rank; but now, at the slightest noise, they are suddenly seized with trembling. That terror is the righteous vengeance of God, to whom they never do homage until they are compelled.

Let us learn, that if we have any spark of faith, we ought not to distrust God when we are in any danger. It is indeed impossible that we should not be agitated and alarmed when dangers press upon us; but we ought not to tremble so as to be tossed about by our anxiety in every direction, and unable to see a harbour to which we may safely direct our course. There must always be this difference between the fear of the godly and of the ungodly, that the ungodly find no remedy for composing their minds; but the godly immediately betake themselves to God, in whom, knowing that they have a very safe harbour, though they be harassed by uneasiness, still they remain calm.

John Gill
Isa 7:2 And it was told the house of David,…. Ahaz, and his family, the princes of the blood, his court and counsellors; who had intelligence of the designs and preparations of the Syrians and Israelites against them:

saying, Syria is confederate with Ephraim; the ten tribes; or the kingdom and king of Israel. Some render it, “Syria led”; that is, its army “unto Ephraim”; marched it into the land of Israel, and there joined the king of Israel’s army; others, as the Vulgate Latin version, “Syria rests upon Ephraim”; depends upon, trusts in, takes heart and encouragement from Ephraim, or the ten tribes, being his ally. The Septuagint version is, “Syria hath agreed with Ephraim”; entered into a confederacy and alliance with each other; which is the sense of our version; and is confirmed by the Targum, which is,

“the king of Syria is joined with the king of Israel:”

and his heart was moved, and the heart of his people, as the trees of the wood are moved with the wind; the metaphor denotes the strength and force of the confederate armies, comparable to a strong, blustering, boisterous wind; see Isa_32:2 and the weakness of the king and people of Judah, who were like to trees shaken by the wind; and also the fear they were possessed with, partly through consciousness of guilt, and partly through distrust of divine power and Providence; and also on account of what they had suffered already from these powerful enemies, when they attacked them singly; and therefore might much more dread them, as they were combined together against them; see 2Ch_28:5.

Albert Barnes
Isa 7:3
Then said the Lord – In regard to the purposes for which Isaiah was sent to meet Ahaz, and the reason why this place was selected, see the Analysis of the chapter.

Thou and Shear-ashub – The meaning of the name “Shear-jashub” is, ‘the remnant shall return.’ The names which Isaiah gave to his sons were significant or emblematic of some important events which were to occur to the Jews. They were for “signs” to the people, and had been given in order to keep before the nation the great truth that God was their protector, and that however much they might suffer or be punished, yet the nation would not be totally destroyed until the great Deliverer should come; see the note at Isa_7:14, and Isa_8:3, note. Why this name was given to this son, or on what occasion, is not certainly known. It is probable, however, that was with reference to the future calamities and captivity of the Jews, denoting that a part of the people would return to the land of their fathers: compare Isa_10:21-22. The name was a remembrancer given by him as a prophet, perhaps, some time before this, that the nation was not to be wholly annihilated – a truth which Isaiah everywhere keeps before them in his prophecies; compare the note at Isa_6:13. “Why” Shear-jashub accompanied Isaiah now is not recorded. It might be as a pledge to Ahaz of the purpose of the Lord, that the people should not be destroyed. Ahaz may have been apprized of the reason why the name was given, and his presence might serve to mitigate his fears.

At the end of the conduit – A “conduit” is a pipe, or other conductor of water. The water flowed from a fountain, but was conducted to different receptacles for the supply of the city.

Of the upper pool – Or the upper receptacle, or pond. Robinson (“Bib. Researches,” i. p. 483) and Pococke (“Descr. of the East,” ii. pp. 25, 26) suppose that the upper and lower pools referred to by Isaiah, were on the west side of the city, the ruins of which now remain. The upper pool is now commonly called by the monks “Gihon,” and by the natives “Birket el Mamilla.” It lies in the basin forming the head of the valley of Hinnom or Gihon, about seven hundred yards west-northwest from the Yafa gate, on the west of Jerusalem. The sides of this pool are built of hewn stones laid in cement, with steps at the corners by which to descend into it. The bottom is level.

There is no water-course, or other visible means, by which water is now brought into this reservoir, but it is probable that it was filled in the rainy seasons by the waters which flowed from the higher ground round about. From this upper pool a part of the water was conveyed into the city to the pool of Hezekiah, lying within the walls, and situated some distance to the northeastward of the Yafa gate. ‘Hezekiah stopped the upper watercourse of Gihon, and brought it straight down to the west side of the city of David;’ 2Ch_32:30; compare the notes at Isa_22:9. This upper pool had a trench or ‘conduit,’ and a considerable part of the waters were allowed to flow through this to the lower pool. The ‘lower pool’ is mentioned in the Old Testament only once, and that by Isaiah Isa_22:9, and there without any hint of its locality. There is now a large lower pool on the western side of Jerusalem, which is not improbably the one intended, and which stands in contrast with the one mentioned here. This pool is called by the Arabs “Birket es-Sultan.” There is, at present, no other pool in the vicinity of Jerusalem to which the description in Isaiah can be well applied. This reservoir is situated in the valley of Hinnom or Gihon, southward from the Yafa gate. Its northern end is nearly upon a line with the southern wall of the city. The pool was formed by throwing strong walls across the bottom of the valley, between which the earth was wholly removed. A road crosses on the causeway at the southern end.

This reservoir was probably filled from the rains, and from the superfluous waters of the upper pool. It is now in ruins. The water from this pool would flow off into the valley of Hinnom, and thence, into the valley of Jehoshaphat or Kedron, or subsequently into the pool of Hezekiah, situated “within” the city; see the notes at Isa_22:9, Isa_22:11. Why Ahaz was at that place, the prophet does not say. It is possible he was examining it, to see whether the fountain could be stopped up, or the water diverted so that it could not be used by the enemy, and so that they could be prevented from maintaining a protracted siege; compare 2Ch_32:4. It is probable that the king had gone to this place attended by many of his counselors, and as this was the main source of the supply of water to the city, a multitude would be there, and Isaiah could have an opportunity not only to deliver his message to Ahaz and his court, but in the presence of a considerable concourse of people, and might thus inspire confidence among the alarmed and dejected inhabitants of the city.

In the highway of the fuller’s field – In the place occupied as a situation on which to spread, or suspend cloth that was bleached, or dyed. This situation would be chosen because much water was needed in bleaching or dyeing cloth. The name ‘highway’ denotes the public path, or road that led to this field. Probably, on one side of this highway was the aqueduct, and on the other the fuller’s field. Of the fuller’s field, Eusebius and Jerome merely say that it was shown in their day in the suburbs of the city. – “Onom.” art. “Ager Fullonis.”

John Calvin
Isa 7:4
4.And thou shalt say to him(102) The Hebrew word שמר(shamar,) which signifies to keep, is here put in the Hiphil; (103) and the greater part of interpreters take it for beware; but they erroneously apply this to an unnatural and far-fetched meaning, that Ahaz should bewareof carrying on war. A more natural meaning is, that he ought not to waver or wander about in uncertainty, but to remain calm and serene. Accordingly, I have rendered it refrain. The meaning therefore is, that Ahab should be composed, and should not be agitated or harass his mind by uneasiness, as fickle and unsteady persons are wont to do when they are struck with terror.

This interpretation is confirmed by the word which follows, Bequiet; for these two are connected, first, to keep quiet watch, so as not to be distracted by a variety of opinions, or gaze around in all directions; and, secondly, to have a calm and composed mind. Such are the highly delightful fruits which are yielded by faith; for through a variety of attacks unbelievers give way, and wander in uncertainty, and know not to which hand they ought to turn, while believers keep themselves under restraint, and quietly betake themselves to God. Ungodliness is never at rest; but where faith exists, there the mind is composed, and does not tremble to an immoderate degree. These words very fitly express the power of faith.

Fear not. After having pointed out the remedy for allaying the distresses of the mind, he likewise bids them not fear; for faith, which places our salvation in the hand of God, is not more opposite to anything than to fear. It is impossible, I acknowledge, not to fear when dangers threaten, for faith does not deprive us of all feeling. On the contrary, the children of God are undoubtedly moved by two kinds of fear, one of which arises from the feeling of human nature, even though they be endued with perfect faith. The other arises from the weakness of faith; for no man has made such proficiency as not to have any remains of that distrust against which we ought continually to strive. We must not, therefore, understand the exhortation of the Prophet to mean that the Lord forbids every kind of fear, but he enjoins believers to be armed with such firmness as to overcome fear. As if he had said, “Do not suffer yourselves to be discouraged; and if you are assailed by fierce and severe attacks, maintain unshaken resolution, that you may not be overpowered by dangers, but, on the contrary, live to God and overcome all your distresses.” For the same reason he immediately adds, —

And let not thy heart be faint. To be faint means “to melt away,” for not without reason does the Apostle exhort us to strengthen our hearts by faith. (Heb_11:27.) It is the softness of indolence, when we forget God and melt away, as it were, through our unbelief. You would not call that man soft or effeminate who relies on the Spirit of God and steadfastly resists adversity. Hence we infer that the Prophet meant nothing else than that Ahaz should undauntedly await the accomplishment of what the Lord had promised to him.

For the two tails. Isaiah employs an elegant metaphor to lessen the conception which the Jews had formed about those two very powerful kings which had filled their minds with terror. Their rage and cruelty appeared to be a devouring fire, which was sufficient to consume the whole of Judea, and could not be quenched. Isaiah, on the other hand, calls them not firebrands, (for that might have been thought to be something great,) but tails, that is, some fragments or ends of firebrands, and these, too, not burning, but only smoking, as if some firebrand snatched from the fire were going out, and gave out nothing else than a slight smoke. This metaphor yields high consolation, for it warns us to form a very different opinion about the violence of the ungodly from what it appears to be. One would think that they are endued with so great power that they could burn and destroy the whole world. To put down the excess of terror, the Lord declares that what we imagined to be a burning, and a perpetual burning, is but a slight smoke and of short duration.

John Calvin
Isa 7:5
5.The king of Syria hath taken evil counsel against thee.Though he foretold that empty would be the threats, and vain the attempts of the enemies of the people of God, yet he does not conceal that their devices are cruel, if the Lord do not restrain them. By evil counsel he means destructive counsel, for these two kings had leagued together to destroy Judea. To express it more fully, and to place it as it were before their eyes, he relates their very words.

John Gill
Isa 7:6 Let us go up against Judah, and vex it,…. By besieging or distressing it; or “stir it up” to war, as Jarchi interprets it:

and let us make a breach therein for us; in the walls of the city of Jerusalem, and enter in at it; the Targum is,

“let us join, and put it to us;”

and so Jarchi, let us level it with us, as this valley, which is even: the sense may be, let us make a breach and division among them, and then part the kingdom between us (c); or if we cannot agree on that, let us set up a king of our own, as follows:

and set a king in the midst of it, even the son of Tabeal; which Jarchi, by a situation of the alphabet the Jews call “albam”, makes it to be the same with Remala, that is, Remaliah; and so supposes, that the intention was to set Pekah, son of Remaliah, king of Israel, over Judah; but it is not reasonable to think that the king of Syria should join in such a design; and besides, the method of interpretation, Aben Ezra says, is mere vanity; and whose sense of the words is much preferable, taking Tabeal to be the name of some great prince, either of Israel or of Syria; and so Kimchi thinks that he was a man of the children of Ephraim, whom they thought to make king in Jerusalem. The Targum understands not any particular person, but anyone that should be thought proper; and paraphrases it thus,

“let us appoint a king in the midst of it, who is right for us,”

or pleases us; the name seems to be Syriac, see Ezr_4:7. Dr. Lightfoot thinks it is the same with Tabrimmon, the name of some famous family in Syria. One signifies “good God”: and the other “good Rimmon”, which was the name of the idol of the Syrians, 2Ki_5:18.

(c) So Noldius, Elr. Concord. Part. p. 62. renders its “let us divide it among us”.

John Calvin
Isa 7:7
7.It shall not stand. What he had formerly stated was intended to show more fully that the deliverance was great and uncommon; for when the Lord intends to assist us in our trials, he represents the greatness of the danger, that we may not think that he promises less than the necessity requires. He does not usually give a mitigated view of the evils which press upon us, but rather holds out their full extent, and afterwards makes a promise, and shows that he is able to deliver us, though we may appear to be ruined. Such was the method adopted by the Prophet; for he might have told them in plain terms what would happen, and might have encouraged the king and the nation not to be terrified or discouraged at the sight of those armies. But he opened up the scheme and design of those kings, with which he now contrasts the promise and decree of God, that his wonderful assistance may be more strikingly displayed.

This is the sacred anchor which alone upholds us amidst the billows of temptations; for in adversity we shall never be able to stand if God take away his word from us. Although, therefore, the king was almost overwhelmed with despair, Isaiah shows that there is nothing so dreadful that it may not be despised, provided that he fortify himself by the promise of God, and patiently look for that which is not yet seen, and which even appears to be incredible. He affirms, that whatever men attempt, after the manner of the giants, in rising up against God, it shall not stand. He uses the word תקים, (thakum,) shall arise, in the same sense in which that metaphor is employed in the Latin language, that a work is making progress; and, in a word, he declares that such daring sacrilege shall not stand

Still more emphatic is that which he adds, לא תהיה, (lothihyeh,) it shall not be; that is, it shall be reduced to nothing, as if it had never existed. This mode of expression deserves notice, for it was the bare and naked word of God which was contrasted with the vast army and scheme of the kings.

John Gill
Isa 7:8 For the head of Syria is Damascus,…. Damascus was the metropolis of Syria, the chief city in it, where the king had his palace, and kept his court; of which See Gill on Gen_15:2, Act_9:2,

and the head of Damascus is Rezin; he was king of it, as of all Syria; the meaning is, that Syria, of which Damascus was the principal city, was the only country that Rezin should govern, his dominion should not be enlarged; and Ahaz, king of Judah, might assure himself that Rezin should never possess his kingdom, or be able to depose him, and set up another; and as for Ephraim or Israel, the ten tribes, they should be so far from succeeding in such a design against him, that it should befall them as follows:

and within threescore and five years shall Ephraim be broken, that it be not a people; which is by some reckoned, not from the time of this prophecy, that being in the third or fourth year of Ahaz, who reigned in all but sixteen years; and in the ninth of Hosea king of Israel, and in the sixth of Hezekiah king of Judah, Samaria was taken, and Israel carried captive into Assyria, 2Ki_17:6 which was but about eighteen or nineteen years from this time: some think indeed the time was shortened, because of their sins; but this does not appear, nor is it probable: and others think that it designs any time within that term; but the true meaning undoubtedly is, as the Targum renders it,

“at the end of sixty and five years, the kingdom of the house of Israel shall cease.”

This is commonly reckoned by the Jewish writers (d) from the prophecy of Amos, who prophesied two years before the earthquake in Uzziah’s time, concerning the captivity both of Syria and Israel, Amo_1:1, Amo_7:11 which account may be carried either through the kings of Judah or of Israel; Jarchi goes the former way, reckoning thus,

“the prophecy of Amos was two years before Uzziah was smitten with the leprosy, according to Amo_1:1. Uzziah was a leper twenty five years, lo, twenty seven. Jotham reigned sixteen years, Ahaz sixteen, and Hezekiah six; as it is said, “in the sixth year of Hezekiah (that is, the ninth year of Hoshea king of Israel) Samaria was taken”, 2Ki_18:10 lo, sixty five years.”

So Abarbinel; but Kimchi goes another way, which comes to the same, reckoning thus,

“the prophecy of Amos, according to computation, was in the seventeenth year of Jeroboam, son of Joash, king of Israel, how is it? Jeroboam reigned forty one years, Menahem ten, so there are fifty one; Pekahiah the son of Menahem two, so fifty three; and Pekah twenty, so seventy three; and Hoshea the son of Elah nine, and then Israel were carried captive, so there are eighty two: take out of them seventeen (the years of Jeroboam before the prophecy), and there remain sixty five, the number intended; for we do not reckon the six months of Zechariah, and the month of Shallum.”

Cocceius reckons from the death of Jeroboam, who died in the forty first year of his reign, and in the fifteenth of Uzziah, so that there remained thirty seven years of Uzziah; in the twentieth of Jotham, that is, in the fourth after his death, Hoshea son of Elah was made king, this was the twelfth of Ahaz, 2Ki_15:30 and in the ninth of Hoshea, Samaria was taken, and Israel carried captive. But Junius and Tremellius are of a different mind from either of these, and think the prophecy wholly respects time to come; they observe, that

“Isaiah in these words first shows, that the kingdom of Syria should be immediately cut off, and the king should die, which at furthest must needs happen four years after; so (say they) we may suppose that these things were said by the prophet in the first year of Ahaz; thence, from the destruction of the Syrians, to the full carrying captive of the Israelites, or from the time of this prophecy, sixty five years must have run out; for although the kingdom of Israel was abolished in the sixth year of Hezekiah, yet Israel did not immediately cease to be a people when only some part of it was carried away; but they entirely ceased to be a people when new colonies were introduced by Esarhaddon, the son of Sennacherib, and all the Israelites were forced into bondage, which the Samaritans explain, Ezr_4:2 wherefore so we fix the series of the times, from the fourth year of Ahaz, in which the kingdom of Syria fell, unto the end, are eleven years, Hezekiah reigned twenty nine years, so the last translation of the Israelites was in the twenty fifth year of Manasseh’s reign; but if you begin from the time of the prophecy; the thing will fall upon the twenty first or twenty second of Manasseh’s reign; at which time perhaps, as some say, Manasseh was carried captive into Babylon.”

And of this mind was the learned Dr. Prideaux (e), who observes, that in the twenty second year of Manasseh, Esarhaddon prepared a great army, and marched into the parts of Syria and Palestine, and again added them to the Assyrian empire; and adds,

“and then was accomplished the prophecy which was spoken by Isaiah in the first year of Ahaz against Samaria, that within threescore and five years Ephraim should be absolutely broken, so as from thenceforth to be no more a people; for this year being exactly sixty five years from the first of Ahaz, Esarhaddon, after he had settled all affairs in Syria, marched into the land of Israel, and there taking captive all those who were the remains of the former captivity (excepting only some few, who escaped his hands, and continued still in the land), carried them away into Babylon and Assyria; and then, to prevent the land becoming desolate, he brought others from Babylon, and from Cutha, and from Havah, and Hamath, and Sephervaim, to dwell in the cities of Samaria in their stead; and so the ten tribes of Israel, which had separated from the house of David, were brought to a full and utter destruction, and never after recovered themselves again.”

And this seems to be the true accomplishment of this prophecy; though the sense of the Jewish writers is followed by many, and preferred by Noldius; so that there is no need with Grotius and Vitringa to suppose a corruption of the text. Gussetius (f) fancies that ששים signifies twice six, that is, twelve; as עשרים twice ten, or twenty; and so five, added to twelve, makes seventeen; and from the fourth of Ahaz, to the taking of Samaria, was about seventeen years.

(d) Seder Olam Rabba, c. 28. p. 85. Aben Ezra in loc. (e) Connection, &c. par, 1. B. 1. p. 30. Bishop Usher, Annal. Vet. Test. A. M. 3327. (f) Comment Ebr. p. 892.

Abert Barnes
Isa 7:8
For the head of Syria – The “capital.” The “head” is often used in this sense.

Is Damascus – For an account of this city, see the notes at Isa_17:1; compare the notes at Act_9:2. The sense of this passage is, ‘Do not be alarmed as if Rezin was about to enlarge his kingdom, by taking Judea and making Jerusalem his capital. The revolution which these kings contemplate cannot be accomplished. The kingdoms of Syria and Israel shall not be enlarged by the conquest of Judah. The center of their power shall remain where it is now, and their dominion shall not be extended by conquest. The capital of Syria is, and shall continue to be, Damascus. The king of Syria shall be confined within his present limits, and Jerusalem, therefore, shall be safe.’

The head of Damascus – The “ruler, or king” of Damascus is Rezin.

And within threescore and five years – There has been some inquiry why “Ephraim” is mentioned here, as the prophet in the former part of the verse was speaking of “Syria.” But it should be remembered that he was speaking of Syria and Ephraim as “confederate.” It was natural, therefore, to intimate, in close connection, that no fear was to be apprehended from either of them. There has been much difficulty experienced in establishing the fact of the exact fulfillment of this, and in fixing the precise event to which it refers. One catastrophe happened to the kingdom of Ephraim or Israel within one or two years of this time, when Tiglath-pileser, king of Assyria, invaded the land and carried no small part of the people to Assyria; 2Ki_15:29. Another occurred in the next reign, the reign of Hoshea, king of Israel, when Shalmaneser king of Assyria took Samaria, and carried Israel away captive into Assyria; 2Ki_17:1-6.

This occurred in the twelfth year of Ahaz. But that the Israelites remained in Samaria, and kept up the forms of a civil community, and were not finally carried away until the time of Esarhaddon, is evident; compare 2Ch_34:6-7, 2Ch_34:33; 2Ch_35:18; 2Ki_23:19-20. Manasseh, king of Judah, was taken captive by the king of Assyria’s captains 2Ch_33:2 in the twenty-second year of his reign; that is, sixty-five years from the second year of Ahaz, when this prophecy is supposed to have been delivered. And it is also supposed that at this time Esarhaddon took away the remains of the people in Samaria, and put an end to the kingdom, and put in their place the people who are mentioned in Ezr_4:3. “Dr. Jubb, as quoted by Lowth.” The entire extinction of the people of Israel and the kingdom did not take place until Esarhaddon put new colonists from Babylon, and from Cuthah, and from Ava, and from Hamath, and from Sepharvaim in the cities of Samaria, instead of the children of Israel; 2Ki_17:24; compare Ezr_4:2, Ezr_4:10.

Long before this, indeed, the power of the kingdom had been on the wane; a large portion of the people had been removed 2Ki_17:5-6, 2Ki_17:18; but its entire extinction was not accomplished, and the kingdom utterly destroyed, until this was done. Until this occurred, the land might be still regarded as in the possession somewhat of its former people, and all hopes of their rising again to the dignity of a kingdom was not extinguished. But when foreigners were introduced, and took possession of the land; when all the social organization of the ancient people was dissolved; then it might be said that ‘Ephraim was forever broken,’ and that it was demonstrated that it ‘should be no more a people.’ Its inhabitants were transferred to a distant land, no longer to be organized into a unique community, but to mingle with other people, and finally all traces of their origin as Jews were to be lost. This event, of placing the foreigners in the cities of Samaria, occurred just sixty-five years after it had been predicted by Isaiah. – “Dr. Usher.”

It may be asked here, how the statement of what was to occur at so remote a period as sixty-five years could be any consolation to Ahaz, or any security that the designs of the kings of Syria and Samaria should “then” fail of being accomplished? To this we may reply:

(1) It was the assurance that Jerusalem could not be finally and permanently reduced to submission before these dreaded enemies. “Their” power was to cease, and of course Jerusalem had nothing “ultimately and finally” to dread.
(2) The design was to inspire confidence in Yahweh, and to lead Ahaz to look directly to him. If these formidable powers could not ultimately prevail, and if there was a certain prediction that they should be destroyed, then it was possible for God, if Ahaz would look to him, now to interpose, and save the city. To inspire that confidence in Yahweh was the leading purpose of Isaiah.
(3) This prediction is in accordance with many which occur in Isaiah, that all the enemies of the people of God would be ultimately defeated, and that God, as the head of the theocracy, would defend and deliver his people; see the notes at Isa. 34. A kingdom that was so soon to be destroyed as Ephraim was, could not be an object of great dread and alarm. Rosenmuller conjectures, that Isaiah refers to some unrecorded prophecy made before his time, that in sixty-five years Israel would be destroyed; and that he refers here to that prophecy to encourage the heart of Ahaz, and to remind him that a kingdom could not be very formidable that was so soon to come to an end. At all events, there is no contradiction between the prophecy and the fulfillment, for within the time mentioned here, Ephraim ceased to be a kingdom. The ancient Jewish writers, with one consent, say, that Isaiah referred here to the prophecy of Amos, who prophesied in the days of Uzziah, and whose predictions relate mainly to the kingdom of Israel. But as Amos, does not specify any particular time when the kingdom should be destroyed, it is apparent that Isaiah here could not have referred to any recorded prophecy of his.

Be broken – Its power shall be destroyed; the kingdom, as a kingdom, shall come to an end.

Adam Clarke
Is 7:9 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, 2Ch_34:6, 2Ch_34:7, 2Ch_34:33; 2Ch_35:18; 2Ki_23:19, 2Ki_23:20. This seems to be the best explanation of the chronological difficulty in this place, which has much embarrassed the commentators: see Usserii Annal. 5. T. ad an. 3327, and Sir 1. Newton, Chronol. p. 283.

“That the last deportation of Israel by Esarhaddon was in the sixty-fifth year after the second of Ahaz, is probable for the following reasons: The Jews, in Seder Olam Rabba, and the Talmudists, in D. Kimchi on Ezekiel iv., say that Manasseh king of Judah was carried to Babylon by the king of Assyria’s captains, 2Ch_33:11, in the twenty-second year of his reign; that is, before Christ 676, according to Dr. Blair’s tables. And they are probably right in this. It could not be much earlier; as the king of Assyria was not king of Babylon till 680, ibid. As Esarhaddon was then in the neighborhood 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, Ezr_4:2. But this year is just the sixty-fifth from the second of Ahaz, which was 740 before Christ. Now the carrying away the remains of Israel, who, till then, though their kingdom was destroyed forty-five years before, and though small in number, might yet keep up some form of being a people, by living according to their own laws, entirely put an end to the people of Israel, as a people separate from all others: for from this time they never returned to their own country in a body, but were confounded with the people of Judah in the captivity; and the whole people, the ten tribes included, were called Jews.” – Dr. Jubb. Two MSS. have twenty-five instead of sixty-five; and two others omit the word five, reading only sixty.

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

“If ye believe not in me.” – The exhortation of Jehoshaphat, 2Ch_20:20, to his people, when God had promised to them, by the prophet Jahaziel, victory over the Moabites and Ammonites, is very like this both in sense and expression, and seems to be delivered in verse:
“Hear me, O Judah; and ye inhabitants of Jerusalem;
Believe in Jehovah your God, and ye shall be established:
Believe his prophets, and ye shall prosper.”

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

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

Albert Barnes
Isa 7:9
And the head of Ephraim – The capital city of Ephraim, or of Israel.

Is Samaria – This was long the capital of the kingdom of Israel. For a description of this city, see the notes at Isa_28:1. The meaning of the prophet is, that Samaria should continue to be the head of Ephraim; that is, Jerusalem should not be made its capital.

If ye will not believe, surely ye shall not be established – There is considerable variety in the interpretation of these words, though the general sense is evident. The Chaldee renders them, ‘If ye will not believe the words of the prophet, ye shall not remain.’ It is probable that Ahaz, who was greatly alarmed, and who trembled at the formidable power of Syria and Israel united, received the annunciation of the prophet with much distrust. He was anxious about the means of defense, but did not trust in the promise of God by the prophet. Isaiah, therefore, assures him, that if he did not believe him; if he did not put confidence in God, and his promises, he should not be protected from Syria and Ephraim. They would come and destroy his kingdom. ‘You have no occasion,’ is the language of the prophet, ‘to fear. God has resolved to protect you, and no portion of your land shall be taken by your enemies. Nevertheless, in order that you may obtain deliverance, you must believe his promise, and put your confidence in him, and not in the aid of the Assyrians. If you do this, your mind shall be calm, peaceful, and happy. But if you do “not” do this; if you rely on the aid of Assyria, you shall be troubled, alarmed, unsuccessful, and bring ruin upon yourself and nation.’ This, therefore, is an exhortation to confide solely in the promises of God, and is one of the instances constantly occurring in the Old Testament and the New, showing, that by faith or confidence in God only, can the mind he preserved calm when in the midst of dangers.

John Calvin

Isa 7:10
10.And Jehovah added to speak to Ahaz As the Lord knew that King Ahaz was so wicked as not to believe the promise, so he enjoins Isaiah to confirm him by adding a sign; for when God sees that his promises do not satisfy us, he makes additions to them suitable to our weakness; so that we not only hear him speak, but likewise behold his hand displayed, and thus are confirmed by an evident proof of the fact. Here we ought carefully to observe the use of signs, that is, the reason why God performs miracles, namely, to confirm us in the belief of his word; for when we see his power, if we have any hesitation about what he says to us, our doubt is removed by beholding the thing itself; for miracles added to the word are seals.

John Calvin
Isa 7:11
11.Either in the deep.I understand it simply to mean Either above or below. He allows him an unrestricted choice of a miracle, to demand either what belongs to earth or what belongs to heaven. But perhaps in the word deepthere is something still more emphatic; as if he had said, “It belongs to you to choose. God will immediately show that his dominion is higher than this world, and that it likewise extends to all depths, so that at his pleasure he can raise the dead from their graves.” It was undoubtedly astonishing forbearance towards this wicked king and people of God, that not only did he patiently bear their distrust for a time, but so graciously condescended to them that he was willing to give them any pledge of his power which they chose. Yet he had in his eye not unbelievers only, but he intended likewise to provide for the benefit of the weak, in whom there was a seed of godliness; that they might be fully convinced that Isaiah did not speak at random, for he could easily give a proof of the power of God in confirmation of what he had said.

The same goodness of God is now also displayed towards men, to whom he exercises such forbearance, when he might justly have been offended at them; for how shockingly do they insult God, when they doubt his truth? What do you leave to God, if you take that from him? And whatever may be our doubts, not only does he pardon us, but even aids our distrust, and not only by his word, but by adding miracles; and he exhibits them not only to believers, but also to the ungodly, which we may behold in this king. And if he was at that time so kind to strangers, what ought not his own people to expect from him?

Albert Barnes
Isa 7:11
Ask thee – Ask for “thyself;” ask a sign that shall be convincing to “thyself,” since thou dost not fully credit the words of the prophet. It is evident that the words of the prophet had made no impression on the mind of Ahaz. God, therefore, proposes to him to ask any “proof or demonstration” which he might select; anything that would be an indication of divine power that should put what the prophet had said beyond doubt. Had Ahaz put confidence in God, he would have believed what the prophet said without miraculous proof. But he had no such confidence. ‘The prophet, therefore, proposes that he should ask any miraculous demonstration that what he said would come to pass. This proposition was made, probably, not so much from respect to Ahaz as to leave him without excuse, and in order that “the people” might have the assurance that the city and kingdom were safe.

A sign – A demonstration that shall confirm the promise now made, and that shall be an evidence that Jerusalem shall be safe. The word used here, and translated “sign” – ‘owt – אות ‘ôth – means “a flag,” or “a standard,” Num_2:2; “a memorial or pledge” of a covenant, Gen_17:11; any “pledge, token, or proof” of a divine mission, Jdg_6:17; or a miracle performed in attestation of a divine promise or message. This is its sense here. That which Isaiah had spoken seemed highly improbable to Ahaz, and he asked him to seek a proof of it, if he doubted, by any prodigy or miracle. It was customary for miracles or prodigies to be exhibited on similar occasions; see Isa_38:7, where the shadow on the dial of this same Ahaz was carried backward ten degrees, in proof of what the prophet Isaiah had spoken; compare 1Sa_2:27-34; 1Ki_13:1-3; Exo_3:12; Jdg_6:36-40. That the word here refers to some event which could be brought about only by divine power, is evident from the whole connection. No mere natural occurrence could have satisfied Ahaz, or convey to the people a demonstration of the truth of what the prophet was saying. And if the prophet had been unable or unwilling to give a miraculous sign, where is the fitness of the answer of Ahaz? How could he be regarded as in any way tempting God by asking it, unless it was something which God only could do? And how could the prophet bring the charge Isa_7:13, that he had not merely offended men, but God also? It is clear, therefore, that Isaiah was conscious that he was invested by God with the power of working a miracle, and that he proposed to perform any miracle which Ahaz should suggest that would serve to remove his doubts, and lead him to put confidence in God.

Ask it either in the depth … – He gave him his choice of a miracle – any sign or wonder in heaven, or on earth – above or below; a miracle in the sky, or from beneath the earth. Many of the versions understand the expression ‘the depth,’ as referring to “the grave,” or to the region of departed souls – “hades.” So the Vulgate, Aquila, Symmachus. The Chaldee reads it, ‘Seek that there may be a miracle to thee upon the earth, or a sign in the heavens.’ The literal meaning of the Hebrew is, ‘make low, ask for;’ that is, ask for a sign below; obtain, by asking for thyself; a miracle that shall take place below. It may refer to the earth, or to the region under the earth, since it stands in contrast with that which is above. If it refers to the region under the earth, it means that Isaiah would raise the dead to life if Ahaz desired it; if to the earth, that any wonder or miracle that should take place in the elements – as a tempest, or earthquake – should be performed.

The height above – The heaven, or the sky. So the Pharisees desired to see a sign from heaven, Mat_16:1.

George Haydock
Isa 7:12 Lord. He was afraid of being forced to relinquish his evil ways. (St. Jerome)

John Gill
Isa 7:12 But Ahaz said, I will not ask,…. That is, a sign or miracle to be wrought; being unwilling to take the advice to be still and quiet, and make no preparation for war, or seek out for help from the Assyrians, and to rely upon the promise and power of God, and therefore chose not to have it confirmed by a sign; adding as an excuse,

neither will I tempt the Lord, by asking a sign; suggesting that this was contrary to the command of God, Deu_6:16 so pretending religion and reverence of God; whereas, to ask a sign of God, when it was offered, could not be reckoned a tempting him; but, on the contrary, to refuse one; when offered, argued great stubbornness and ingratitude, as Calvin well observes.

John Calvin
Isa 7:12
12.And Ahaz said.By a plausible excuse he refuses the sign which the Lord offered to him. That excuse is, that he is unwilling to tempt the LORD; for he pretends to believe the words of the Prophet, and to ask nothing more from God than his word. Ungodliness is certainly detestable in the sight of God, and in like manner God unquestionably sets a high value on faith. Accordingly, if a man rely on his word alone, and disregard everything else, it might be thought that he deserves the highest praise; for there can be no greater perfection than to yield full submission and obedience to God.

But a question arises. Do we tempt God, when we accept what he offers to us? Certainly not. Ahaz therefore speaks falsehood, when he pretends that he refuses the sign, because he is unwilling to tempt God; for there can be nothing fitter or more excellent than to obey God, and indeed it is the highest virtue to ask nothing beyond the word of God; and yet if God choose to add anything to his word, it ought not to be regarded as a virtue to reject this addition as superfluous. It is no small insult offered to God, when his goodness is despised in such a manner as if his proceedings towards us were of no advantage, and as if he did not know what it is that we chiefly need. We know that faith is chiefly commended on this ground, that it maintains obedience to him; but when we wish to be too wise, and despise anything that belongs to God, we are undoubtedly abominable before God, whatever excuse we may plead before men. While we believe the word of God, we ought not to despise the aids which he has been pleased to add for the purpose of strengthening our faith.

For instance, the Lord offers to us in the gospel everything necessary for salvation; for when he brings us into a state of fellowship with Christ, the sum of all blessings is truly contained in him. What then is the use of Baptism and the Lord’s Supper? Must they be regarded as superfluous? Not at all; for any one who shall actually, and without flattery, acknowledge his weakness, of which all from the least to the greatest are conscious, will gladly avail himself of those aids for his support. We ought indeed to grieve and lament, that the sacred truth of God needs assistance on account of the defect of our flesh; but since we cannot all at once remove this defect, any one who, according to his capacity shall believe the word, will immediately render full obedience to God. Let us therefore learn to embrace the signs along with the word, since it is not in the power of man to separate them.

When Ahaz refuses the sign offered to him, by doing so he displays both his obstinacy and his ingratitude; for he despises what God had offered for the highest advantage. Hence also it is evident how far we ought to ask signs, namely, when God offers them to us; and therefore he who shall reject them when offered, must also reject the grace of God. In like manner fanatics of the present day disregard Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and consider them to be childish elements. They cannot do this without at the same time rejecting the whole gospel; for we must not separate those things which the Lord has commanded us to join.

But a question may be asked, Is it not sometimes lawful to ask signs from the Lord? For we have an instance of this in Gideon, who wished to have his calling confirmed by some sign. (Jud_6:17.) The Lord granted his prayer, and did not disapprove of such a desire. I answer, though Gideon was not commanded by God to ask a sign, yet he did so, not at his own suggestion, but by an operation of the Holy Spirit. We must not abuse his example, therefore, so that each of us may freely allow himself that liberty; for so great is the forwardness of men that they do not hesitate to ask innumerable signs from God without any proper reason. Such effrontery ought therefore to be restrained, that we may be satisfied with those signs which the Lord offers to us.

Now, there are two kinds of signs; for some are extraordinary, and may be called supernatural; such as that which the Prophet will immediately add, and that which, we shall afterwards see, was offered to Hezekiah. (Isa_38:7.) Some are ordinary, and in daily use among believers, such as Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, which contain no miracle, or at least may be perceived by the eye or by some of the senses. What the Lord miraculously performs by his Spirit is unseen, but in those which are extraordinary the miracle itself is seen. Such is also the end and use of all signs; for as Gideon was confirmed by an astonishing miracle, so we are confirmed by Baptism and the Lord’s Supper, though our eyes behold no miracle.

John Calvin
Isa 7:13
13.And he said, Hear now, O house of David.Under the pretense of honor to exclude the power of God, which would maintain the truth of the promise, was intolerable wickedness; and therefore the Prophet kindles into warmer indignation, and more sharply rebukes wicked hypocrites. Though it would have been honorable to them to be reckoned the descendants of David, provided that they imitated his piety, yet it is rather for the sake of reproach that he calls them the posterity or family of David. It was indeed no small aggravation of the baseness, that the grace of God was rejected by that family from which the salvation of the whole world would proceed. Grievous disgrace must have been brought on them, by naming their ancestry, from which they had so basely and shamefully degenerated.

This order ought to be carefully observed; for we ought not to begin with severe reproof, but with doctrine, that men may be gently drawn by it. When plain and simple doctrine is not sufficient, proofs must be added. But if even this method produce no good effect, it then becomes necessary to employ greater vehemence. Such is the manner in which we hear Isaiah thundering on the present occasion. After having exhibited to the king both doctrine and signs, he now resorts to the last remedy, and sharply and severely reproves an obstinate man; and not him only, but the whole royal family which was guilty of the same kind of impiety.

Is it a small thing for you to weary men?He makes a comparison between God and men; not that it is possible to make an actual separation between God and the prophets and holy teachers of whom he speaks, who are nothing else than God’s instruments, and make common cause with him, when they discharge their duty; for of them the Lord testifies,

He who despiseth you despiseth me.
He who heareth you heareth me. (Luk_10:16.)

The Prophet therefore adapts his discourse to the impiety of Ahaz, and of those who resembled him; for they thought that they had to deal with men. Those very words were undoubtedly spoken in ancient times which we hear at the present day from the mouths of the ungodly: “Are they not men that speak to us?” And thus they endeavor to disparage the doctrine which comes from God. As it was customary at that time for irreligious despisers of doctrine to use the same kind of language, the Prophet, by way of admission, says that those who performed the sacred office of teaching the word were men. “Be it so. You tell me that I am a mortal man. That is the light in which you view the prophets of God. But is it a small thing to weary us, if you do not also weary God? Now, you despise God, by rejecting the sign of his astonishing power which he was willing to give to you. In vain therefore do you boast that you do not despise him, and that you have to do with men, and not with God.” This then is the reason why the Prophet was so greatly enraged. Hence we see more clearly what I mentioned a little before, that the proper season for giving reproofs is, when we have attempted everything that God enjoined, and have neglected no part of our duty. We ought then to break out with greater vehemence, and to expose the ungodliness which lurked under those cloaks of hypocrisy.

My God.He formerly said, Ask a sign for thee from the Lord thy God; for at that time his obstinacy and rebellion had not been manifestly proved. But now he claims it as peculiar to himself; for Ahaz, and those who resembled him, had no right to boast of the name of God. He therefore intimates that God is on his side, and is not on the side of those hypocrites: and in this way he testifies his confidence; for he shows how conscientiously he promised deliverance to the king; as if he had said, that he did not come but when God sent him, and that he said nothing but what he was commanded to say. With the same boldness ought all ministers to be endued, not only so as to profess it, but to have it deeply rooted in their hearts. The false prophets also boast of it loudly, but it is empty and unmeaning talk, or a blind confidence arising from rashness.

John Gill
Isa 7:14 Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign,…. Whether they would ask one or not; a sign both in heaven and earth, namely, the promised Messiah; who being the Lord from heaven, would take flesh of a virgin on earth; and who as man, being buried in the heart of the earth, would be raised from thence, and ascend up into heaven; and whose birth, though it was to be many years after, was a sign of present deliverance to Judah from the confederacy of the two kings of Syria and Israel; and of future safety, since it was not possible that this kingdom should cease to be one until the Messiah was come, who was to spring from Judah, and be of the house of David; wherefore by how much the longer off was his birth, by so much the longer was their safety.

Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son; this is not to be understood of Hezekiah, the son of Ahaz, by his wife, as some Jewish writers interpret it; which interpretation Jarchi refutes, by observing that Hezekiah was nine years old when his father began to reign, and this being, as he says, the fourth year of his reign, he must be at this time thirteen years of age; in like manner, Aben Ezra and Kimchi object to it; and besides, his mother could not be called a “virgin”: and for the same reason it cannot be understood of any other son of his either by his wife, as Kimchi thinks, or by some young woman; moreover, no other son of his was ever lord of Judea, as this Immanuel is represented to be, in Isa_8:8 nor can it be interpreted of Isaiah’s wife and son, as Aben Ezra and Jarchi think; since the prophet could never call her a “virgin”, who had bore him children, one of which was now with him; nor indeed a “young woman”, but rather “the prophetess”, as in Isa_8:3 nor was any son of his king of Judah, as this appears to be, in the place before cited: but the Messiah is here meant, who was to be born of a pure virgin; as the word here used signifies in all places where it is mentioned, as Gen_24:43 and even in Pro_30:19 which is the instance the Jews give of the word being used of a woman corrupted; since it does not appear that the maid and the adulterous woman are one and the same person; and if they were, she might, though vitiated, be called a maid or virgin, from her own profession of herself, or as she appeared to others who knew her not, or as she was antecedent to her defilement; which is no unusual thing in Scripture, see Deu_22:28 to which may be added, that not only the Evangelist Matthew renders the word by παρθενος, “a virgin”; but the Septuagint interpreters, who were Jews, so rendered the word hundreds of years before him; and best agrees with the Hebrew word, which comes from the root עלם, which signifies to “hide” or “cover”; virgins being covered and unknown to men; and in the eastern country were usually kept recluse, and were shut up from the public company and conversation of men: and now this was the sign that was to be given, and a miraculous one it was, that the Messiah should be born of a pure and incorrupt virgin; and therefore a “behold” is prefixed to it, as a note of admiration; and what else could be this sign or wonder? not surely that a young married woman, either Ahaz’s or Isaiah’s wife, should be with child, which is nothing surprising, and of which there are repeated instances every day; nor was it that the young woman was unfit for conception at the time of the prophecy, which was the fancy of some, as Jarchi reports, since no such intimation is given either in the text or context; nor did it lie in this, that it was a male child, and not a female, which was predicted, as R. Saadiah Gaon, in Aben Ezra, would have it; for the sign or wonder does not lie in the truth of the prophet’s prediction, but in the greatness of the thing predicted; besides, the verification of this would not have given the prophet much credit, nor Ahaz and the house of David much comfort, since this might have been ascribed rather to a happy conjecture than to a spirit of prophecy; much less can the wonder be, that this child should eat butter and honey, as soon as it was born, as Aben Ezra and Kimchi suggest; since nothing is more natural to, and common with young children, than to take down any kind of liquids which are sweet and pleasant.

And shall call his name Immanuel; which is, by interpretation, “God with us”, Mat_1:23 whence it appears that the Messiah is truly God, as well as truly man: the name is expressive of the union of the two natures, human and divine, in him; of his office as Mediator, who, being both God and man, is a middle person between both; of his converse with men on earth, and of his spiritual presence with his people. See Joh_1:14.

Albert Barnes
Isa 7:14
Therefore – Since you will not “ask” a pledge that the land shall be safe, Yahweh will furnish one unasked. A sign or proof is desirable in the case, and Yahweh will not withhold it because a proud and contemptuous monarch refuses to seek it. Perhaps there is no prophecy in the Old Testament on which more has been written, and which has produced more perplexity among commentators than this. And after all, it still remains, in many respects, very obscure. Its general original meaning is not difficult. It is, that in a short time – within the time when a young woman, then a virgin, should conceive and bring forth a child, and that child should grow old enough to distinguish between good and evils – the calamity which Ahaz feared would be entirely removed. The confederacy would be broken up, and the land forsaken by both those kings. The conception and birth of a child – which could be known only by him who knows “all” future events – would be the evidence of such a result. His appropriate “name” would be such as would be a “sign,” or an indication that God was the protector of the nation, or was still with them. In the examination of this difficult prophecy, my first object will be to give an explanation of the meaning of the “words and phrases” as they occur in the passage, and then to show, as far as I may be able, what was the design of the passage.

The Lord himself – Hebrew, ‘Adonai;’ see this word explained in the the note at Isa_1:24. He will do it without being asked to do it; he will do it though it is rejected and despised; he will do it because it is important for the welfare of the nation, and for the confirmation of his religion, to furnish a demonstration to the people that he is the only true God. It is clearly implied here, that the sign should be such as Yahweh alone could give. It would be such as would be a demonstration that he presided over the interests of the people. If this refers to the birth of a child, then it means that this was an event which could be known only to God, and which could be accomplished only by his agency. If it refers to the miraculous conception and birth of the Messiah, then it means that that was an event which none but God could accomplish. The true meaning I shall endeavor to state in the notes, at the close of Isa_7:16.

Shall give you – Primarily to the house of David; the king and royal family of Judah. It was especially designed to assure the government that the kingdom would be safe. Doubtless, however, the word ‘you’ is designed to include the nation, or the people of the kingdom of Judah. It would be so public a sign, and so clear a demonstration, as to convince them that their city and land must be ultimately safe.

A sign – A pledge; a token; an evidence of the fulfillment of what is predicted. The word does not, of necessity, denote a miracle, though it is often so applied; see the notes at Isa_7:11. Here it means a proof, a demonstration, a certain indication that what he had said should be fulfilled. As that was to be such a demonstration as to show that he was “able” to deliver the land, the word “here” denotes that which was miraculous, or which could be effected “only” by Yahweh.

Behold – הנה hinnêh. This interjection is a very common one in the Old Testament. It is used to arrest attention; to indicate the importance of what was about to be said. It serves to designate persons and things; places and actions. It is used in lively descriptions, and animated discourse; when anything unusual was said, or occurred; or any thing which especially demanded attention; Gen_12:19; Gen_16:16; Gen_18:9; Gen_1:29; Gen_40:9; Psa_134:1. It means here, that an event was to occur which demanded the attention of the unbelieving monarch, and the regard of the people – an event which would be a full demonstration of what the prophet had said, that God would protect and save the nation.

A virgin – This word properly means a girl, maiden, virgin, a young woman who is unmarried, and who is of marriageable age. The word עלמה ‛almâh, is derived from the verb עלם ‛âlam, “to conceal, to hide, to cover.” The word עלם ‛elem, from the same verb, is applied to a “young man,” in 1Sa_17:56; 1Sa_20:22. The word here translated a virgin, is applied to Rebekah Gen_24:43, and to Miriam, the sister of Moses, Exo_2:8. It occurs in only seven places in the Old Testament. Besides those already mentioned, it is found in Psa_68:25; Son_1:3; Son_6:8; and Pro_30:19. In all these places, except, perhaps, in Proverbs, it is used in its obvious natural sense, to denote a young, unmarried female. In the Syriac, the word alĕm, means to grow up, juvenis factus est; juvenescere fecited. Hence, the derivatives are applied to youth; to young men; to young women – to those who “are growing up,” and becoming youths.

The etymology of the word requires us to suppose that it means one who is growing up to a marriageable state, or to the age of puberty. The word maiden, or virgin, expresses the correct idea. Hengstenberg contends, that it means one “in the unmarried state;” Gesenius, that it means simply the being of marriageable age, the age of puberty. The Hebrews usually employed the word בתולה bethûlâh, to denote a pure virgin (a word which the Syriac translation uses here); but the word here evidently denotes one who was “then” unmarried; and though its primary idea is that of one who is growing up, or in a marriageable state, yet the whole connection requires us to understand it of one who was “not then married,” and who was, therefore, regarded and designated as a virgin. The Vulgate renders it ‘virgo.’ The Septuagint, ἡ παρθένος hē parthenos, “a virgin” – a word which they use as a translation of the Hebrew בתולה bethûlâh in Exo_22:16-17; Lev_21:3, Lev_21:14; Deu_22:19, Deu_22:23, Deu_22:28; Deu_32:25; Jdg_19:24; Jdg_21:12; and in thirty-three other places (see Trommius’ Concordance); of נערה na‛ărâh, a girl, in Gen_24:14, Gen_24:16, Gen_24:55; Gen_34:3 (twice); 1Ki_1:2; and of עלמה ‛almâh, only in Gen_24:43; and in Isa_7:14.

The word, in the view of the Septuagint translators, therefore conveyed the proper idea of a virgin. The Chaldee uses substantially the same word as the Hebrew. The idea of a “virgin” is, therefore, the most obvious and natural idea in the use of this word. It does not, however, imply that the person spoken of should be a virgin “when the child” should be born; or that she should ever after be a virgin. It means simply that one who was “then” a virgin, but who was of marriageable age, should conceive, and bear a son. Whether she was “to be” a virgin “at the time” when the child was born, or was to remain such afterward, are inquiries which cannot be determined by a philological examination of the word. It is evident also, that the word is not opposed to “either” of these ideas. “Why” the name which is thus given to an unmarried woman was derived from the verb to “hide, to conceal,” is not agreed among lexicographers. The more probable opinion is, that it was because to the time of marriage, the daughter was supposed to be hidden or concealed in the family of the parents; she was kept shut up, as it were, in the paternal dwelling. This idea is given by Jerome, who says, ‘the name is given to a virgin because she is said to be hidden or secret; because she does not expose herself to the gaze of men, but is kept with great care under the custody of parents.’ The sum of the inquiry here, into the meaning of the word translated “virgin,” is, that it does not differ from that word as used by us. The expression means no more than that one who was then a virgin should have a son, and that this should be a sign to Ahaz.

And shall call his name – It was usual for “mothers” to give names to their children; Gen_4:1; Gen_19:37; Gen_29:32; Gen_30:18. There is, therefore, no reason to suppose, as many of the older interpreters did, that the fact that it is said the mother should give the name, was a proof that the child should have no human father. Such arguments are unworthy of notice; and only show to what means people have resorted in defending the doctrines, and in interpreting the pages of the Bible. The phrase, ‘she will name,’ is, moreover, the same as ‘they shall name,’ or he shall be named. ‘We are not, then, to suppose that the child should actually receive the name Immanuel as a proper name, since, according to the usage of the prophet, and especially of Isaiah, that is often ascribed to a person or thing as a name which belongs to him in an eminent degree as an attribute; see Isa_9:5; Isa_61:6; Isa_62:4.’ – “Hengstenberg.” The idea is, that that would be a name that might be “appropriately” given to the child. Another name was also given to this child, expressing substantially the same thing, with a circumstantial difference; see the note at Isa_8:3.

Immanuel – Hebrew ‘God with us’ – עמנואל ‛immânû’êl – from אל ‘ĕl, “God,” and עמנוּ ‛îmmânû, “with us.” The name is designed to denote that God would be with the nation as its protector, and the birth of this child would be a sign or pledge of it. The mere circumstance that this name is given, however, does not imply anything in regard to the nature or rank of the child, for nothing was more common among the Jews than to incorporate the name, or a part of the name, of the Deity with the names which they gave to their children. Thus, “Isaiah” denotes the salvation of Yahweh; “Jeremiah,” the exaltation or grandeur of Yahweh, each compounded of two words, in which the name Yahweh constitutes a part. Thus, also in “Elijah,” the two names of God are combined, and it means literally, “God the Yahweh.” Thus, also “Eliab,” God my faather; “Eliada,” knowledge of God; “Eliakim,” the resurrection of God; “Elihu,” he is my God; “Elisha,” salvation of God. In none of these instances is the fact, that the name of God is incorporated with the proper name of the individual, any argument in respect to his rank or character.

It is true, that Matthew Mat_1:23 uses this name as properly expressing the rank of the Messiah; but all that can be demonstrated from the use of the name by Matthew is, that it properly designated the nature and rank of the Lord Jesus. It was a pledge, then, that God was with his people, and the name designated by the prophet had a complete fulfillment in its use as applied to the Messiah. Whether the Messiah be regarded as himself a pledge and demonstration of the presence and protection of God, or whether the name be regarded as descriptive of his nature and dignity, yet there was an “appropriateness” in applying it to him. It was fully expressive of the event of the incarnation. Jerome supposes that the name, Immanuel, denotes nothing more than divine aid and protection. Others have supposed, however, that the name must denote the assumption of our nature by God in the person of the Messiah, that is, that God became man. So Theodoret, Irenaeus, Tertullian, Lactantius, Chrysostom. Calvin, Rosenmuller, and others. The true interpretation is, that no argument to prove that can be derived from the use of the name; but when the fact of the incarnation has been demonstrated from other sources, the “name is appropriately expressive of that event.” So it seems to be used by Matthew.

It may be quite true, that no argument can be founded on the bare name, Immanuel; yet that name, “in its connection here,” may certainly be regarded as a designed prediction of the incarnation of Christ. Such a design our author allows in the prophecy generally. ‘The prophet,’ says he, ‘designedly made use of language which would be appropriate to a future and most glorious event.’ Why, then, does he speak of the most pregnant word in the prophecy as if Matthew had accidentally stumbled on it, and, finding it would appropriately express the nature of Christ, accomodated it for that purpose? Having originally rejected the Messianic reference, and been convinced only by a more careful examination of the passage, that he was in error, something of his old view seems still to cling to this otherwise admirable exposition. ‘The name Immanuel,’ says Professor Alexander, ‘although it might be used to signify God’s providential presence merely Psa_46:8, 12; Psa_89:25; Jos_1:5; Jer_1:8; Isa_43:2, has a latitude and pregnancy of meaning which can scarcely be fortuitous; and which, combined with all the rest, makes the conclusion almost unavoidable, that it was here intended to express a personal, as well as a providential presence … When we read in the Gospel of Matthew, that Jesus Christ was actually born of a virgin, and that all the circumstances of his birth came to pass that this very prophecy might be fulfilled, it has less the appearance of an unexpected application, than of a conclusion rendered necessary by a series of antecedent facts and reasonings, the last link in a long chain of intimations more or less explicit (referring to such prophecies as Gen_3:15; Mic_5:2).

The same considerations seem to show that the prophecy is not merely accommodated, which is, moreover, clear fram the emphatic form of the citation τοῦτο ὅλον γέγονεν ἵνα πληρωθῇ touto holon gegonen hina plēroothē, making it impossible to prove the existence of any quotation in the proper sense, if this be not one.’ But, indeed, the author himself admits all this, though his language is less decided and consistent than could be wished on so important a subject.

Albert Barnes
Isa 7:15
Butter and honey – The word rendered “butter” (חמאה chem’âh), denotes not butter, but thick and curdled milk. This was the common mode of using milk as an article of food in the East, and is still. In no passage in the Old Testament does butter seem to be meant by the word. Jarchi says, that this circumstance denotes a state of plenty, meaning that the land should yield its usual increase notwithstanding the threatened invasion. Eustatius on this place says, that it denotes delicate food. The more probable interpretation is, that it was the usual food of children, and that it means that the child should be nourished in the customary manner. That this was the common nourishment of children, is abundantly proved by Bochart; “Hieroz.” P. i. lib. xi. ch. li. p. 630. Barnabas, in his epistle says, ‘The infant is first nourished with honey, and then with milk.’ This was done usually by the prescription of physicians.
Paulus says, ‘It is fit that the first food given to a child be honey, and then milk.’ So Aetius, ‘Give to a child, as its first food, honey;’ see “Bochart.” Some have, indeed, supposed that this refers to the fact that the Messiah should be “man” as well as God, and that his eating honey and butter was expressive of the fact that he had a “human nature!” But against this mode of interpretation, it is hoped, it is scarcely needful now to protest. It is suited to bring the Bible into contempt, and the whole science of exegesis into scorn. The Bible is a book of sense, and it should be interpreted on principles that commend themselves to the sober judgment of mankind. The word rendered “honey” – דבשׁ debash – is the same word – “dibs” – which is now used by the Arabs to denote the syrup or jelly which is made by boiling down wine. This is about the consistence of molasses, and is used as an article of food. Whether it was so employed in the time of Isaiah, cannot now be determined, but the word here may be used to denote honey; compare the note at Isa_7:22.

That he may know – As this translation now stands, it is unintelligible. It would “seem” from this, that his eating butter and honey would “contribute” to his knowing good and evil. But this cannot be the meaning. It evidently denotes ‘until he shall know,’ or, ‘at his knowing;’ Nord. “Heb. Gram.,” Section 1026. 3. He shall be no urished in the usual way, “until” he shall arrive at such a period of life as to know good from evil. The Septuagint renders it, Πρινη γνῶναι αὐτὸν Prinē gnōnai auton – ‘before he knows.’ The Chaldee, ‘Until he shall know.’

To refuse the evil … – Ignorance of good and evil denotes infancy. Thus, in Nineveh, it is said there were ‘more than sixscore thousand perons that cannot discern between their right hand and left hand;’ commonly supposed to denote infants; Jon_4:11; compare Deu_1:39. The meaning is, that he should be nourished in the usual mode in infancy, and before he should be able to discern right from wrong, the land should be forsaken of its kings. At what particular period of life this occurs, it may not be easy to determine. A capability to determine, in some degree, between good and evil, or between right and wrong, is usually manifest when the child is two or three years of age. It is evinced when there is a capability of understanding “law,” and feeling that it is wrong to disobey it. This is certainly shown at a very early period of life; and it is not improper, therefore, to suppose that here a time was designated which was not more than two or three years.

John Gill
Isa 7:16 For before the child shall know to refuse the evil, and choose the good,…. This may be understood of Isaiah’s child, Shearjashub, he had along with him, he was bid to take with him; and who therefore must be supposed to bear some part, or answer some end or other, in this prophecy; which it is very probable may be this, viz. to assure Ahaz and the house of David that the land which was abhorred by them should be forsaken of both its kings, before the child that was with him was grown to years of discretion; though it may be understood of any child, and so of the Messiah; and the sense be, that before any child, or new born babe, such an one as is promised, Isa_7:14, arrives to years of discretion, even in the space of a few years, this remarkable deliverance should be wrought, and the Jews freed from all fears of being destroyed by these princes:

the land that thou abhorrest shall be forsaken of both her kings; meaning not the land of Judea, now distressed by them, which they should leave; for that could not be said to be abhorred by Ahaz, or the house of David; but the land of Israel and Syria, called one land, because of the confederacy between the kings of them, Rezin and Remaliah’s son, which Ahaz and his nobles abhorred, because of their joining together against them; and so it was, that in a very little time both these kings were cut off; Pekah the son of Remaliah was slain by Hoshea the son of Elah, who reigned in his stead, 2Ki_15:30 and Rezin was slain by the king of Assyria, 2Ki_16:9.

Albert Barnes
Isa 7:16
The land that thou abhorrest – The land concerning which thou art so much “alarmed or distressed;” that is, the united land of Syria and Ephraim. It is mentioned here as ‘the land,’ or as one land, because they were united then in a firm alliance, so as to constitute, in fact, or for the purposes of invasion and conquest, one people or nation. The phrase, ‘which thou abhorrest,’ means properly, which thou loathest, the primary idea of the word – קוץ qûts – being to feel a nausea, or to vomit. It then means to fear, or to feel alarm; and this, probably, is the meaning here. Abaz, however, evidently looked upon the nations of Syria and Samaria with disgust, as well as with alarm. This is the construction which is given of this passage by the Vulgate, Calvin, Grotius, Junins, Gataker, and Piscator, as well as by our common version. Another construction, however, has been given of the passage by Vitringa, JohnD. Michaelis, Lowth, Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Hengstenberg, and Hendewerk. According to this, the meaning is not that the “land” should be the object of abhorrence, but that the kings themselves were the objects of dislike or dread; and not merely that the two kings should be removed, but that the land itself was threatened with desolation. This construction is free from the objections of an exegetical kind to which the other is open, and agrees better with the idiom of the Hebrew. According to this, the correct translation would be:

For before the child shall learn to refuse the Evil and to choose the good, Desolate shall be the land, before whose two Kings thou art in terror.’

Of both her kings – Ahaz took the silver and gold that was found in the temple, and sent it as a present to the king of Assyria. Induced by this, the king of Assyria marched against Damascus and killed Rezin, 2Ki_16:9. This occurred but a short time after the threatened invasion of the land by Rezin and Remaliah, in the “third” year of the reign of Ahaz, and, consequently, about one year after this prophecy was delivered. Pekah, the son of Remaliah, was slain by Hoshea, the son of Elah, who conspired against him, killed him, and reigned in his stead. This occurred in the fourth year of the reign of Ahaz, for Pekah reigned twenty years. Ahaz began to reign in the seventeenth year of the reign of Pekah, and as Pekah was slain after he had reigned twenty years, it follows that he was slain in the fourth year of the reign of Ahaz – perhaps not more than two yearn after this prophecy was delivered; see 2Ki_15:27, 2Ki_15:30; 2Ki_16:1. We have thus arrived at a knowledge of the time intended by Isaiah in Isa_7:16. The whole space of time was not, probably, more than two years.

Albert Barnes
Opinions on the Intrepretation of Isaiah 7:14-16
A great variety of opinions have been entertained by interpreters in regard to this passage Isa_7:14-16. It may be useful, therefore, to state briefly what those opinions have been, and then what seems to be the true meaning.

(i) The first opinion is that which supposes that by the ‘virgin’ the wife of Ahaz is referred to, and that by the child which should be born, the prophet refers to Hezekiah. This is the opinion of the modern Jewish commentators generally. This interpretation prevailed among the Jews in the time of Justin. But this was easily shown by Jerome to be false. Ahaz reigned in Jerusalem but sixteen years 2Ki_17:2, and Hezekiah was twenty-five years old when he began to reign 2Ki_18:2, and of course was not less than nine years old when this prophecy was delivered. Kimchi and Abarbanel then resorted to the supposition that Ahaz had a second wife, and that this refers to a child that was to be born of her. This supposition cannot be proved to be false, though it is evidently a mere supposition. It has been adopted by the Jews, because they were pressed by the passage by the early Christians, as constituting an argument for the divinity of Christ. The ancient Jews, it is believed, referred it mainly to the Messiah.

(ii) Others have supposed, that the prophet designated some virgin who was then present when the king and Isaiah held their conference, and that the meaning is, ‘as surely as this virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, so surely shall the land be forsaken of its kings.’ Thus Isenbiehl, Bauer, Cube, and Steudel held, as quoted by Hengstenberg, “Christol.” i. p. 341.

(iii) Others suppose that the ‘virgin’ was not an actual, but only an ideal virgin. Thus Michaelis expresses it: ‘By the time when one who is yet a virgin can bring forth (that is, in nine months), all will be happily changed, and the present impending danger so completely passed away, that if you were yourself to name the child, you would call him Immanuel.’ Thus Eichhorn, Paulus, Hensler, and Ammon understand it; see “Hengstenberg.”

(iv) Others suppose that the ‘virgin’ was the prophet’s wife. Thus Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Faber, and Gesenius. Against this supposition there is only one objection which has been urged that is of real force, and that is, that the prophet already had a son, and of course his wife could not be spoken of as a virgin. But this objection is entirely removed by the supposition, which is by no means improbable, that the former wife of the prophet was dead, and that he was about to be united in marriage to another who was a virgin.

In regard to the prophecy itself, there have been three opinions:

(i) That it refers “exclusively” to some event in the time of the prophet; to the birth of a child then, either of the wife of Ahaz, or of the prophet, or of some other unmarried female. This would, of course, exclude all reference to the Messiah. This was formerly my opinion; and this opinion I expressed and endeavored to maintain, in the first composition of these notes. But a more careful examination of the passage has convinced me of its error, and satisfied me that the passage has reference to the Messtah. The reasons for this opinion I shall soon state.

(ii) The second opinion is, that it has “exclusive and immediate” reference to the Messiah; that it does not refer at all to any event which was “then” to occur, and that to Ahaz the future birth of a Messiah from a virgin, was to be regarded as a pledge of the divine protection, and an assurance of the safety of Jerusalem. Some of the objections to this view I shall soon state.

(iii) The third opinion, therefore, is that which “blends” these two, and which regards the prophet as speaking of the birth of a child which would soon take place of someone who was then a virgin – an event which could be known only to God, and which would, therefore, constitute a sign, or demonstration to Ahaz of the truth of what Isaiah said; but that the prophet intentionally so used language which would “also” mark a more important event, and direct the minds of the king and people onward to the future birth of one who should more fully answer to all that is here said of the child that would be born, and to whom the name Immanuel would be more appropriately given. This, I shall endeavor to show, must be the correct interpretation. In exhibiting the reasons for this opinion, we may, first, state the evidence that the prediction refers to some child that would be born “soon” as a pledge that the land would be forsaken of its kings; and secondly, the evidence that it refers also to the Messiah in a higher and fuller sense.

I. Evidence That the Prophecy Refers to Some Event Which Was Soon to Occur – To the Birth of a Child of Some One Who Was Then a Virgin, or Unmarried

(i) It is the “obvious” interpretation. It is that which would strike the great mass of people accustomed to interpret language on the principles of common sense. If the passage stood by itself; if the seventh and eighth chapters were “all” that we had; if there were no allusion to the passage in the New Testament; and if we were to sit down and merely look at the circumstances, and contemplate the narrative, the unhesitating opinion of the great mass of people would be, that it “must” have such a reference. This is a good rule of interpretation. That which strikes the mass of people; which appears to people of sound sense as the meaning of a passage on a simple perusal of it, is likely to be the true meaning of a writing.

(ii) Such an interpretation is demanded by the circumstances of the case. The immediate point of the inquiry was not about the “ultimate and final” safety of the kingdom – which would be demonstrated indeed by the announcement that the Messiah would appear – but it was about a present matter; about impending danger. An alliance was formed between Syria and Samaria. An invasion was threatened. The march of the allied armies had commenced. Jerusalem was in consternation, and Ahaz had gone forth to see if there were any means of defense. In this state of alarm, and at this juncture, Isaiah went to assure him that there was no cause for fear. It was not to assure him that the nation should be ultimately and finally safe – which might be proved by the fact that the Messiah would come, and that, therefore, God would preserve the nation; but the pledge was, that he had no reason to fear “this” invasion, and that within a short space of time the land would ‘be forsaken of both its kings.’ How could the fact that the Messiah would come more than seven hundred years afterward, prove this? Might not Jerusalem be taken and subdued, as it was afterward by the Chaldeans, and yet it be true that the Messiah would come, and that God would manifest himself as the protector of his people? Though, therefore, the assurance that the Messiah would come would be a general proof and pledge that the nation would be preserved and ultimately safe, yet it would not be a pledge of the “specific and immediate” thing which occupied the attention of the prophet, and of Ahaz. It would not, therefore, be a ‘sign’ such as the prophet offered to give, or a proof of the fulfillment of the specific prediction under consideration. This argument I regard as unanswerable. It is so obvious, and so strong, that all the attempts to answer it, by those who suppose there was an immediate and exclusive reference to the Messiah, have been entire failures.

(iii) It is a circumstance of some importance that Isaiah regarded himself and his children as ‘signs’ to the people of his time; see Isa_8:18. In accordance with this view, it seems he had named one child Shear-Jashub, Isa_7:3; and in accordance with the same view, he afterward named another Maher-shalal-hash-baz – both of which names are significant. This would seem to imply that he meant here to refer to a similar fact, and to the birth of a son that should be a sign also to the people of his time.

(iv) An unanswerable reason for thinking that it refers to some event which was soon to occur, and to the birth of a child “before” the land should be forsaken of the two kings, is the record contained in Isa_8:1-4. That record is evidently connected with this account, and is intended to be a public assurance of the fulfillment of what is here predicted respecting the deliverance of the land from the threatened invasion. In that passage, the prophet is directed to take a great roll Isa_7:1, and make a record concerning the son that was to be born; he calls public witnesses, people of character and well-known reputation, in attestation of the transaction Isa_7:2; he approaches the prophetess Isa_7:3; and it is expressly declared Isa_7:4 that before the child should have ‘knowledge to say, My father, and my mother,’ that is, be able to discern between good and evil Isa_7:16, ‘the riches of Damascus and the spoil of Samaria’ should be ‘taken away before the king of Assyria.’ This is so evidently a completion of the prophecy in Isa. vii., and a solemn fulfilling of it in a manner that should be satisfactory to Ahaz and the people, that it is impossible, it seems to me, to regard it any otherwise than as a real transaction. Hengstenberg, and those who suppose the prophecy to refer “immediately and exclusively” to the Messiah, are obliged to maintain that that was a ‘symbolical transaction’ – an opinion which might, with the same propriety, be held of any historical statement in the Bible; since there is nowhere to be found a more simple and unvarnished account of mere matter of historical fact than that. The statement, therefore, in Isa. 8, is conclusive demonstration, I think, that there was a reference in Isa_7:14-16, to a child of the prophet that would be soon born, and that would be a “pledge” of the divine protection, and a “proof or sign” to Ahaz that his land would be safe.

It is no objection to this that Isaiah then had a son Isa_7:3, and that, therefore, the mother of that son could not be a virgin. There is no improbability in the supposition that the mother of that son was deceased, and that Isaiah was about again to be married. Such an event is not so uncommon as to make it a matter of ridicule (see Hengstenberg, p. 342); or to render the supposition wholly incredible.
Nor is it any objection that another name was given to the child that was born to Isaiah; Isa_8:1, Isa_8:3. Nothing was more common than to give two names to children. It might have been true that the name usually given to him was Maher-shalal-hash-baz; and still true that the circumstances of his birth were such an evidence of the divine protection, and such an emblem of the divine guardianship, as to make proper the name Immanuel; see the note at Isa_7:14. It may be observed, also, that on the supposition of the strict and exclusive Messianic interpretation, the same objection might be made, and the same difficulty would lie. It was no more true of Jesus of Nazareth than of the child of Isaiah, that he was commonly called Immanuel. He had another name also, and was called by that other name. Indeed, there is not the slightest evidence that the Lord Jesus was “ever” designated by the name Immanuel as a proper name. All that the passage means is, that such should be the circumstances of the birth of the child as to render the name Immanuel proper; not that it would be applied to him in fact as the usual appellation.

Nor is it any objection to this view, that the mind of the prophet is evidently directed onward “to” the Messiah; and that the prophecy terminates Isa_8:8; Isa_9:1-7 with a reference to him. That this is so, I admit; but nothing is more common in Isaiah than for him to commence a prophecy with reference to some remarkable deliverance which was soon to occur, and to terminate it by a statement of events connected with a higher deliverance under the Messiah. By the laws of “prophetic suggestion,” the mind of the prophet seized upon resemblances and analogies; was carried on to future times, which were suggested by something that he was saying or contemplating as about to occur, until the mind was absorbed, and the primary object forgotten in the contemplation of the more remote and glorious event; see the Introduction to Isaiah, Section 7. III. (3.)

II. Evidence That the Prophecy Refers to the Messiah

(i) The passage in Mat_1:22-23, is an evidence that “he” regarded this as having a reference to the Messiah, and that it had a complete fulfillment in him. This quotation of it also shows that that was the common interpretation of the passage in his time, or he would not thus have introduced it. It cannot be “proved,” indeed, that Matthew means to affirm that this was the primary and original meaning of the prophecy, or that the prophet had a direct and exclusive reference to the Messiah; but it proves that in his apprehension the words had a “fulness” of meaning, and an adaptedness to the actual circumstances of the birth of the Messiah, which would accurately and appropriately express that event; see the notes at the passage in Matthew. The prophecy was not completely “fulfilled, filled up, fully and adequately met,” until applied to the Messiah. That event was so remarkable; the birth of Jesus was so strictly of a virgin, and his nature so exalted, that it might be said to be a “complete and entire” fulfillment of it. The language of Isaiah, indeed, was applicable to the event referred to immediately in the time of Ahaz, and expressed that with clearness; but it more appropriately and fully expressed the event referred to by Matthew, and thus shows that the prophet designedly made use of language which would be appropriate to a future and most glorious event.

(ii) An argument of no slight importance on this subject may be drawn from the fact, that this has been the common interpretation in the Christian church. I know that this argument is not conclusive; nor should it be pressed beyond its due and proper weight. It is of force only because the united and almost uniform impression of mankind, for many generations, in regard to the meaning of a written document, is not to be rejected without great and unanswerable arguments. I know that erroneous interpretations of many passages have prevailed in the church; and that the interpretation of many passages of Scripture which have prevailed from age to age, have been such as have been adapted to bring the whole subject of scriptural exegesis into contempt. But we should be slow to reject that which has had in its favor the suffrages of the unlearned, as well as the learned, in the interpretation of the Bible. The interpretation which refers this passage to the Messiah has been the prevailing one in all ages. It was followed by all the fathers and other Christian expositors until the middle of the eighteenth century (“Hengstenberg”); and is the prevailing interpretation at the present time. Among those who have defended it, it is sufficient to mention the names of Lowth, Koppe, Rosenmuller, and Hengstenberg, in addition to those names which are found in the well-known English commentaries. It has been opposed by the modern Jews, and by German neologists; but has “not” been regarded as false by the great mass of pious and humble Christians. The argument here is simply that which would be applied in the interpretation of a passage in Homer or Virgil; that where the great mass of readers of all classes have concurred in any interpretation, there is “presumptive evidence” that it is correct – evidence, it is true, which may be set aside by argument, but which is to be admitted to be of some account in making up the mind as to the meaning of the passage in question.

(iii) The reference to the Messiah in the prophecy accords with the “general strain and manner” of Isaiah. It is in accordance with his custom, at the mention of some occurrence or deliverance which is soon to take place, to suffer the mind to fix ultimately on the more remote event of the “same general character,” or lying, so to speak, “in the same range of vision” and of thought; see the Introduction, Section 7. It is also the custom of Isaiah to hold up to prominent view the idea that the nation would not be ultimately destroyed until the great Deliverer should come; that it was safe amidst all revolutions; that vitality would remain like that of a tree in the depth of winter, when all the leaves are stripped off Isa_6:13; and that all their enemies would be destroyed, and the true people of God be ultimately secure and safe under their great Deliverer; see the notes at Isa. 34; Isa_35:1-10.

It is true, that this argument will not be “very” striking except to one who has attentively studied this prophecy; but it is believed, that no one can profoundly and carefully examine the manner of Isaiah, without being struck with it as a very important feature of his mode of communicating truth. In accordance with this, the prophecy before us means, that the nation was safe from this invasion. Ahaz feared the extinction of his kingdom, and the “permanent” annexation of Jerusalem to Syria and Samaria. Isaiah told him that that could not occur; and proffered a demonstration, that in “a very few years” the land would be forsaken of both its kings. “On another ground also it could not be.” The people of God were safe. His kingdom could not be permanently destroyed. It must continue until the Messiah should come, and the eye of the prophet, in accordance with his usual custom, glanced to that future event, and he became “totally” absorbed in its contemplation, and the prophecy is finished Isa_9:1-7 by a description of the characteristics of the light that he saw in future times rising in dark Galilee Isa_9:1-2, and of the child that should be born of a virgin then.

In accordance with the same view, we may remark, as Lowth has done, that to a people accustomed to look for a great Deliverer; that had fixed their hopes on one who was to sit on the throne of David, the “language” which Isaiah used here would naturally suggest the idea of a Messiah. It was so animated, so ill adapted to describe his own son, and so suited to convey the idea of a most remarkable and unusual occurrence, that it could scarcely have been otherwise than that they should have thought of the Messiah. This is true in a special manner of the language in Isa_9:1-7.

(iv) An argument for the Messianic interpretation may be derived from the public expectation which was excited by some such prophecy as this. There is a striking similarity between it and one which is uttered by Micah, who was contemporary with Isaiah. Which was penned “first” it would not be easy to show; but they have internal evidence that they both had their origin in an expectation that the Messiah would be born of a virgin; compare the note at Isa_2:2. In Mic_5:2-3, the following prediction occurs: ‘But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler over Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from the days of eternity. Therefore, will he give them up, until the time when she which travaileth hath brought forth.’ That this passage refers to the birth of the Messiah, is demonstrable from Mat_2:6.

Nothing can be clearer than that this is a prediction respecting the place of his birth. The Sanhedrim, when questioned by Herod respecting the place of his birth, answered without the slightest hesitation, and referred to this place in Micah for proof. The expression, ‘she which travaileth,’ or, ‘she that bears shall bear’ – ילדה יולדה yôlēdâh yālâdâh, “she bearing shall bear” – refers evidently to some prediction of such a birth; and the word ‘she that bears’ (יולדה yôlēdâh) seems to have been used somewhat in the sense of a proper name, to designate one who was well known, and of whom there had been a definite prediction. Rosenmuller remarks, ‘She is not indeed expressly called a virgin, but that she is so is self-evident, since she shall bear the hero of divine origin (from everlasting), and consequently not begotten by a mortal. The predictions throw light on each other; Micah discloses the divine origin of the person predicted, Isaiah the wonderful manner of his birth.’ – “Ros.,” as quoted by Hengstenberg. In his first edition, Rosenmuller remarks on Mic_5:2 : ‘The phrase, “she who shall bear shall bear,” denotes the “virgin” from whom, in a miraculous manner, the people of that time hoped that the Messiah would be born.’ If Micah refers to a well-known existing prophecy, it must evidently be this in Isaiah, since no other similar prophecy occurs in the Old Testament; and if he wrote subsequently to Isaiah, the prediction in Micah must be regarded as a proof that this was the prevailing interpretation of his time.

That this was the prevailing interpretation of those times, is confirmed by the traces of the belief which are to be found extensively in ancient nations, that some remarkable person would appear, who should be born in this manner. The idea of a Deliverer, to be born of a “virgin,” is one that somehow had obtained an extensive prevalence in Oriental nations, and traces of it may be found almost everywhere among them. In the Hindoo Mythology it is said, respecting “Budhu,” that be was born of “Maya,” a goddess of the imagination – a virgin. Among the Chinese, there is an image of a beautiful woman with a child in her arms, which child, they say, was born of a virgin. The coincidence of thought is remarkable on any supposition; and there is no improbability in the supposition that the expectation of a great Deliverer to be born of a virgin had prevailed extensively, and that Virgil made it up in this beautiful manner and applied it to a prince in his own time. On the prevalent expectation of such a Deliverer, see the note at Mat_2:2.

(v) But the great and the unanswerable argument for the Messianic interpretation is derived from the conclusion of the prophecy in Isa_8:8, and especially in Isa_9:1-7. The prophecy in Isa_9:1-7 is evidently connected with this; and yet “cannot” be applied to a son of Isaiah, or to any other child that should be then born. If there is any passage in the Old Testament that “must” be applied to the Messiah, that is one; see the notes on the passage. And if so, it proves, that though the prophet at first had his eye on an event which was soon to occur, and which would be to Ahaz full demonstration that the land would be safe from the impending invasion, yet that he employed language which would describe also a future glorious event, and which would be a fuller demonstration that God would protect the people. He became fully absorbed in that event, and his language at last referred to that alone. The child then about to be born would, in most of the circumstances of his birth, be an apt emblem of him who should be born in future times, since both would be a demonstration of the divine power and protection. To both, the name Immanuel, though not the common name by which either would be designated, might be appropriately given. Both would be born of a virgin – the former, of one who was then a virgin, and the birth of whose child could be known only to God – the latter, of one who should be appropriately called “the” virgin, and who should remain so at the time of his birth. This seems to me to be the meaning of this difficult prophecy. The considerations in favor of referring it to the birth of a child in the time of Isaiah, and which should be a pledge to him of the safety of his kingdom “then,” seem to me to be unanswerable. And the considerations in favor of an ultimate reference to the Messiah – a reference which becomes in the issue total and absorbing – are equally unanswerable; and if so, then the twofold reference is clear.