Isaiah Chapter 48 Notes

Chapter Forty-eight:

v. 3: This and subsequent verses (like v. 10, which reads, “I have refined you”) seem to assume that Babylon’s conquest of Judah is in the past.  The fact that the narrator assumes that the conquest of Judah is in the past could mean that this part of the book was not written by Isaiah himself, since he died as an old man at least a century before the Babylonians conquered Judah.  But this interpretation is not necessarily true.  For whatever reason, Isaiah’s use of tense is very fluid throughout the book.[1]  He may have written this section and chosen to refer to the conquest of Judah in the past because he meant to address the Jewish captives in Babylon, years after his death, as contemporaries.  If Isaiah really did write it, referring to the conquest of Judah in the past tense may have had more rhetorical/emotional weight for the captive Jews because they would have had the impression that the prophet not only predicted the conquest of Judah so long before his death, but that he also has come into their own time (so to speak) to predict the return to Judah under the reign of Cyrus.[2]  But even if Isaiah did not write it,[3] the speaker is obviously a prophet and is predicting a future event (the return to Judah) and assuring his audience that this prophecy is true because God is the source of his knowledge.

v. 6:  In v. 1 God says, “Hear this;” then in v. 6 he continues: “You have heard; now see [4] all this.”  A paraphrase might be: You have heard of my past predictions (all of which came to pass), now behold in the present my new ones as they come to pass before your eyes.  The new ones (“new things”) are Cyrus’ conquest of Babylon (v. 14) and the return of the Jews to Judea (vs. 20-21).

So, there are the old predictions and their fulfillments, which the Jews have heard of.  I am not sure exactly what these old predictions refer to.

And then there are the new predictions (which the Jews have not heard of) and their fulfillments (which they will see).  God says that he has not shown them these new predictions before because he “knew that … [they] would deal very treacherously” with them, i.e. that they would misuse them by claiming that they “already knew them” (v. 7).  In making such a false claim, the Jews could attempt to justify their idolatry by arguing that their idols had made the prediction.[5]

But when were these new predictions made?  If they were made by Isaiah, then it seems like they would have come around the same time as his prophecies concerning the Babylonian Captivity.  If so, then the old predictions in this chapter, “the former things” cannot refer to the Babylonian Captivity.[6]  Perhaps “the former things” is a generic term meaning all the famous old predictions of legend like the deliverance of the Israelites from Pharaoh and their possession of the Holy Land, which v. 21 of this chapter seems to allude to.[7]

v. 9: The Babylonian Captivity had been the product of God’s just anger; therefore, God defers his anger, in this case, by ending the Babylonian Captivity.

10:  God explains his metaphorical reference to refining silver:  “I have [metaphorically] refined you [like silver], but not [literally] like silver [since] I have tested you in the furnace of adversity [rather than in a real furnace of fire].”

v. 11:  God does not rescue the Jews because they deserve it; Verses 1-2 seem to say that they are still insincere and rebellious.  He rescues them because of his own merciful nature.[8]

The specific “other” to whom God will not give his glory is an idol.

v. 16: I believe God is the speaker of all these verses until this one.  Even where the speaker refers to God in the third person (vs. 1-2, 14, etc.) one may reasonably conclude that the speaker is still God since God sometimes refers to himself in that way.[9]  But in v. 16, the speaker refers to himself in the first person and to God in the third person.  So who is the speaker?  I think it must be Cyrus, who was himself a foreshadowing of the Messiah in that he delivered God’s people from their captivity.

v. 22: This verse seems a little random.  Maybe I am missing something.  It occurs again in 57:21.

---

[1] Perhaps he did this as a rhetorical device or because, as a prophet, his visions came closer to reflecting God’s own perspective of time.

[2] See note on 41:22.

[3] I do not believe that Isaiah appears by name here or anywhere near this chapter to claim this particular prophecy as his own.

[4] Italics mine.

[5] God makes predictions known before the events they predict so that the people will not attribute the events themselves to their idols (v.5), but in this particular case, he did not make the prediction known for very long before the event.

[6] Throughout this latter part of Isaiah, the prophecies of deliverance from Babylon are interwoven with those concerning the Babylonian Captivity, suggesting that the two types of prophecy (those addressing the Captivity by and Deliverance from Babylon) were initially given around the same time, although (if Isaiah himself never mentioned deliverance from Babylon) I suppose a later editor could arrange Isaiah’s former prophecies about Captivity with a later prophet’s new prophesies of Deliverance.  The editor could justify such an arrangement by claiming Babylon in general as the unifying theme.  In such a scenario, the Babylonian Captivity could be “the former things” of this chapter, but I doubt this is what happened because I believe Isaiah himself spoke both of the Babylonian Captivity and the Deliverance from Babylon.

[7] See also note on 43: 9, 16-18.

[8] Daniel 9:17-18.

[9] As did Jesus.

1st Samuel 20 Notes

Chapter 20

 

v. 2:  The last news that Jonathan apparently had was Saul’s oath in the LORD’s name not to kill David.  See 19:6.

 

v. 5:  This must be a specific field.  It is probably the same one in which David hides in chapter 19:1-7. See also 20:19.

 

v. 35:  The OKJ says, “at the appointed time,” where the NIV reads, “for his meeting.”  I think the NIV is correct because the appointed time was to be “toward the evening” (v. 19), but this is morning.  I think what has happened is that, after the events of the previous night, Jonathan does not want to wait until the evening and so goes out early.  Perhaps David had been living in the field these two days.

Isaiah 12 Notes

Chapter Twelve:

Chapter 12 is definitely the last part of a complete section in the book of Isaiah.  Gesenius, Barnes, and Vitringa all consider chapters 1-12 to be a whole.  Horne and Luther divide the first 12 chapters into smaller sections, but even for them, chapter 12 is the end of a section.  Likewise, the Oxford commentary acknowledges that the hymns of this chapter “recapitulate chs 1-11 by playing on the name Isaiah…” (996).  The surest way to divide the book may be by means of the headings^[1] provided throughout.  For instance, 1:1 is an introductory heading.  Likewise 2:1, 6:1, 7:1, 13:1, all seem like headings.  (I guess this is why the chapter divisions were later made along these lines.)

v. 1: Barnes notes that, although the “you” here (“you will say in that day”) is singular, it implies plurality.  “The address to an individual here…is equivalent to every one, meaning thatall…should say it” (243).  Interestingly, Luther translates the “you” addressed to God (“you O LORD”) into German as dir, the singular, informal address that one would use with peers (clearly not the case here) or friends.  I wonder if Hebrew also has formal and informal ways of address.  If not, I wonder what made Luther choose dir over Ihnen, the formal address one would use when addressing superiors.

---

^[1] By heading, I mean an opening statement that announces a relatively new direction for the book.  Perhaps these headings were added by editors later on, but they still seem a good place to start developing a feel for how the book might be divided.

Isaiah 11 Notes

Chapter 11

Vs. 1-9: Since the Immanuel prophecy and the Prince of Peace prophecy (9:6) both seem to have a fulfillment in the time of Isaiah as well in Christ himself, I wonder if this prophecy (the Branch of Jesse prophecy) should be interpreted in the same way.  Barnes seems inclined to apply it only to the messiah (222).  As proof that this is the way the ancient Jews viewed the passage, he notes that the Chaldee paraphrase of Isaiah considers these verses to be exclusively messianic.^[1] If the paraphrase writers did, in fact, think of these verses as exclusively messianic, that would indicate that Jews from at least one century before the time of Christ considered this prophecy to be unfulfilled by any event or person in Isaiah’s lifetime.  But Isaiah lived in the eighth century B.C. Perhaps the writers of the Chaldee paraphrase, being so separated in time from Isaiah, were ignorant of the prophecy’s initial fulfillment, or perhaps they knew of its initial fulfillment but were focused so exclusively on its ultimate fulfillment in the messiah that they did not bother to consider the prophecy’s earlier fulfillment.

I agree, of course, that the prophecy should ultimately apply to Christ (Romans 15:12).  And it does seem less applicable than the Immanuel prophecy and the Prince of Peace prophecy to any actual person or event in Isaiah’s day.  I suppose one could try to apply it to Hezekiah (the Prince of Peace), but, as Barnes notes, the peace and tranquility of vs. 6-9 do not seem a fit description of Hezekiah’s reign, even as hyperbole (222).

v. 4: Here is an indication that the messiah, while a righteous judge and the son of David, would not be a bloody handed warrior but a man of peace who wages war with words rather than earthly weapons.

Vs. 6-9: The tone of these verses reminds me of 2:2-4, and I suspect that the two passages refer to the same thing, i.e., spiritual Israel, the kingdom of Christ.  (See notes on 2:2-4.)  I think the images here are sublime.  Furthermore, although there is no direct reference to Eden as such, I cannot help but think that these images are meant to suggest a return to Eden and the state of life before the fall.  Note that there are no carnivores anymore (as there could not have been before Death entered the world), and the animals submit so willingly to the benevolent authority of humanity that even a child can lead them.^[2]

v. 10: From the context here and from Paul’s interpretation of this verse (Romans 15:12) I believe Isaiah is indicating that Gentiles will flock to (and be welcome in) the kingdom of the Messiah.  This seems to be the message of 2:2-4 (a passage that closely parallels this chapter in tone) as well as other passages in Isaiah such as 42:6 and 60:1-3.  I believe, therefore, that Isaiah describes the peace of the Messiah’s reign as universal.  Under his reign, the Gentiles will be at peace with the Jews, and the Jews will be at peace with their long time rival, Ephraim, the Northern Kingdom (v.13).

Paul’s interpretation is my main reason for believing that these verses ultimately apply to the entry of Gentiles into the spiritual kingdom of Christ.  However, there is another reason:  The type and quality of peace described in this chapter (even as hyperbole) has no easy application to the history of the earthly kingdom of Judah between the time of Isaiah and Christ.  When the Jews returned to Judah from the Babylonian Captivity, the Samaritans (the remnant of the descendants of the Northern Kingdom mingled with foreigners imported by Assyria) constantly tried to thwart their efforts to rebuild their city and their temple, and this enmity between the two peoples continued into the time of Christ.  Also, after the Persians initiated the reestablishment of Judah, Greece and Rome conquered the Jews again.  Therefore, it is hard to imagine a period of time between Isaiah and Christ (or after Christ) when verses like 13 and 14 could apply to the earthly kingdom of Judah.  It is true that the Jews did make proselytes of some Gentiles and even influenced pagan Gentile kings to acknowledge the sovereignty of God,^[3] but I do not believe that significant portions of the Gentile world sought out the God of the Jews in any era between Isaiah and Christ.  After Christ, however, so many Gentiles sought out the God of the Jews that Christianity has become associated with Gentiles rather than Jews.  Therefore, while Isaiah may have meant for this verse to apply in a limited, immediate sense to pre-Christian events, I believe its ultimate fulfillment is in the kingdom of Christ.  Its immediate fulfillment foreshadows its ultimate.  Other similar verses^[4] emphasize the immediate fulfillment more that does this verse, but I believe even those verses ultimately foreshadow the Gentile conversion to Christianity.

v. 11: The event to which this verse refers is described as God’s second great deliverance of his people.  Given the allusions in subsequent verses to Egypt and the crossing of the Red Sea, I believe the first deliverance must be the exodus from Egypt.  Barnes believes the first deliverance refers to the return from Babylonian captivity.  He believes this because he believes that the Babylonian return must be counted as one of the two deliverances and that it cannot apply to the second deliverance because “there is no record of their [the Jews returning from the Babylonian captivity] having been collected from ‘Egypt,’ or ‘Cush,” or from ‘the islands of the sea” (Barnes 233).  I agree with his argument for rejecting the return from Babylon as the second deliverance.  However, the allusions to the Exodus are too strong to reject it as the first deliverance, so I am forced to conclude that Isaiah does not refer to the return from Babylon in either deliverance.  The deliverance from Egypt was too ingrained in the national psyche not to be the first deliverance meant here, and, although there are a few reasons to believe that the second deliverance might refer to the return from Babylon, I do not believe it does.^[5]

The main reason for believing the second deliverance might refer to the return from Babylon is in vs. 15 and 16 where Isaiah parallels the exodus crossing of the Red Sea with the Jewish exiles’ return to Judah across The River (the Euphrates).  The fact that God will dry the waters of The River for his people to cross them (just as he dried the waters of the Red Sea during the Exodus) is a compelling argument for seeing the return from Babylon as the second deliverance; however, the second deliverance is not confined to crossing The River.  It is a return to Israel from “the four corners of the earth” (v.12).  Besides, the nation that Isaiah names here is Assyria, not Babylon, which seems odd if he means to refer to the Babylonian captivity.^[6] Also, while the reestablishment of the kingdom of Judah after the Babylonian captivity might have encouraged waves of Jewish immigration from the rest of the world, I do not believe this was the case.

I believe the second deliverance is the establishment of spiritual Israel under Jesus, just as the first is the establishment of physical Israel under Moses.  Notice how closely this passage parallels the circumstances surrounding the establishment of the Church (spiritual Israel) on the day of Pentecost.  Acts 2:5, 9-11 reads,

Now there were dwelling in Jerusalem [to celebrate Pentecost] Jews, devout men from every nation under heaven… Parthians and Medes and Elamites, those dwelling in Mesopotamia, Judea and Cappadocia, Pontus and Asia, Phrygia and Pamphylia, Egypt and the parts of Lybia adjoining Cyrene, visitors from Rome, both Jews and proselytes, Cretans and Arabs….

Isaiah 11:11 describes those saved by the second deliverance as coming “from Assyria and Egypt, from Pathros and Cush, from Elam and Shinar, from Hamath and the islands of the sea.”  I even wonder if Luke had this passage of Isaiah in mind when he chose to describe the birth of the Church as he did in Acts.  Anyway, it seems a closer fit for the second deliverance than the return from Babylon; at the very least, even if Isaiah meant for the return from Babylon to be the second deliverance, Pentecost was a later, more complete fulfillment of that second deliverance (and the first deliverance, for that matter), just as Christ was a more complete fulfillment of the Immanuel prophecy than was the original Immanuel.

v. 14: Here is another litmus test for whether or not this second deliverance and the circumstances surrounding it apply to the history of physical Israel and its return from Babylon or to the founding of spiritual Israel.  I do not know of any historical conquests made after the return from Babylon that would match those described in this verse.  Therefore, I believe that the passage should be interpreted as a metaphor for the spiritual conquest (conversion) of the enemies of God by spiritual Israel.  Barnes interprets the passage in this way also (238).  I believe he would have mentioned any historical conquests that would match these, if he knew of any.  The Oxford commentary does not note any corresponding conquests either.  This is particularly interesting in the case of the Oxford commentary since it chooses to regard any prophecy that is historically accurate as being written after the historical events in question.  (See my introduction notes.)  Presumably, the Oxford glossers believe this because they do not believe prophecy, as such, is possible.  They believe, in effect, that subsequent writers of the book of Isaiah masqueraded as Isaiah himself so that his “prophecies” would seem like accurate predictions of the future.  However, if subsequent editors were allowed such liberties with the book, why would they not have amended this section to more accurately reflect the literal history of physical Israel?  It seems like they would have, but they did not, which makes me think that they took no such liberties with any part of the book.  Therefore, if any part of Isaiah has obvious historical accuracy, I believe it is because Isaiah foresaw it as a prophet, and if, as is the case here, there is no corresponding historical event, then its fulfillment must be spiritual.  The only alternative is to believe that Isaiah made a mistake, but if his prophecies were capable of inaccuracy, then why would those in chapters 40-66 be so accurate?

v. 15: This is a good metaphor.  The German version translates “destroy” as “dry up,” which fits well with the image of a tongue in a scorching wind.

---

^[1] The Targums or Chaldee versions of Isaiah are “works of Jews living in Palestine and Babylon, from a century before Christ, to the eighth or ninth century after” (Barnes 48).  I assume that Barnes is saying the paraphrase of these verses in Isaiah is among those works written a century before Christ.

 

^[2] See also notes on Genesis 3:21 and 2:7, and Isaiah 65:17-25.

^[3] Remember Daniel’s influence on Nebuchadnezzar and Darius.

^[4] One such similar verse is in chapter 66.  Compare “On that day the root of Jesse shall stand as a signal to the peoples” with 66:19: “I will set a sign among them.”

^[5] This belief is very tentative, however.  For instance, I believe that chapter 65 does allude to the return from captivity, but Isaiah uses some of the same imagery in that chapter that he does in this one.  Compare 65:25 with 11:6-9.  See, in particular, notes for 65:25.

^[6] I suppose Isaiah might say “Assyria” rather than “Babylon” to refer to the Babylonian captivity in the following scenario:  In his day, the region of Mesopotamia was dominated by Assyria, so when Isaiah refers to “Assyria” he may simply be referring to that region (Mesopotamia) by means of the name which commonly described it in his lifetime.  In this way the prophecy might refer to the Babylonian captivity without recognizing that the region of the captivity would be know as “Babylon” at the actual time of the captivity.  But this scenario seems unlikely, given that Isaiah refers to Babylon as such in 13:1.

Notes on Isaiah 10

Chapter 10

v. 6b: “To seize the spoil, to take the prey” is another of Isaiah’s ironic twists.  (On the subject of irony and paradox in Isaiah, see also notes on 6:9, and  7:11, 14-16.)  This is no doubt an allusion to the name Maher-Shalal-Hash-Baz, which means, “haste to the spoil; haste to the prey,” (8:3), but here in chapter ten (with reference to the Assyrian invasion) the phrase “to seize the spoil, to take the prey” is a threat against the Jews, whereas in chapter eight it reassures them of their deliverance from Syria and Ephraim.

v. 7: As God’s wrath works in concert with the self-destructive free-will choices of the wicked in 9:18-19, so here his wrath against his disobedient people works in concert with the king of Assyria’s will to conquer other nations.  Isaiah describes the king as if he were acting on his own free will to invade the northern kingdom and Judah; this is why he is culpable for his decision later on in spite of the fact that God made good use of the invasion.^[1]

Vs. 20-21: In the context, I would say that “Israel” (as well as “Jacob”) here refers to Judeans since whoever it is “will never again depend on him who defeated them.”  The northern kingdom (a.k.a. Israel, Ephraim, and Samaria) never depended on Assyria, but Judah did.  So by this point in history the term “Israel” must have designated the northern kingdom specifically or the kingdom of God in general (which would naturally have included Judah) depending on the context.

Vs. 26-27: I believe these verses allude to 9:2-7.

---

^[1] V. 15 does make it seem as though the king has no will in the matter (as an axe has no choice in what it chops) but this interpretation may be carrying the axe analogy too far. If, however, God overrode the king’s free will (as he eventually did with Pharaoh in Moses’ day) then it must have been because the king’s previous evil decisions (many of which were of the same type as the decision to invade Samaria and Judah) forfeited his right to exercise free will here. In this case, perhaps this overriding on the part of God may have been the beginning of the king’s punishment for those earlier crimes.

I Samuel 14 Notes

Chapter 14

 

v. 1:  With this and every other account of Jonathan, the author illustrates what a good and faithful king Jonathan would have been, in contrast to his father.

 

v. 9:  Jonathan is assuming that it is the LORD’s will that they fight the Philistines.  The only thing in question here is the best place to fight them; therefore, Jonathan devises this method of inquiring of the LORD through the mouths of his enemies.

 

v. 35:  Why mention this?  The writer seems to be pointing out Saul’s mistakes and faults throughout this section, so perhaps it is a negative comment.

 

v. 39:  This vow has an arrogant nature to it, and the fact that it was foolish can be seen in at least three ways:

1) its weakening effect on the people as they pursued their enemy

2) the pendulum effect which its severity had on the people once they did start eating

3) the fact that its curse wound up falling on Saul’s own son, the hero of the day.

As to whether or not Jonathan sinned by breaking it, I’m unsure.  I do not think that the lot fell on him by chance, so he probably did sin, technically, but the fact that the vow was foolish, and not his own, and (initially) broken in ignorance seems to have exonerated him of personal responsibility.  Neither the narrative voice nor God as a character in the story requires that he be personally punished for the transgression (in contrast to Achan, for instance – See Joshua 7:10-26).  A close (but not exact) parallel would be Jephthah’s dilemma in Judges 11:29-40 (See notes).  David breaks an oath in chapter twenty-five because he comes to realize that the oath itself was evil, and he is praised for the decision to break it.

Notes for Isaiah 8

Chapter 8

v. 3: Because of this verse, I believe that the first Immanuel must have been this child of Isaiah’s.  Even though the child’s name here is not identified specifically as “Immanuel,” his significance as a prophetic sign is so similar to Immanuel’s that I think it is reasonable to assume that the two names refer to the same child.  Immanuel and Maher-Schalal-Hash-Baz both serve as living timelines by which one could mark the destruction of Syria and Ephraim.  Before Immanuel (or Maher-Schalal-Hash-Baz) can tell the difference between right and wrong, the power of Syria and Ephraim will be vanquished.  (See notes on v. 4.)  It is not strange that somebody would have two names like this;  Peter was also called Simon, and Jesus himself is  named Immanuel in Matthew.

v. 4: Saying “before the child knows how to call ‘My father’ or ‘My mother’” might simply be idiomatic (rather than literal) and mean “before he knows the difference between right and wrong.”  I admit there does not seem to be much in the two phrases that would suggest this connection out of context, but the fact that this prophecy is so similar to the one concerning Immanuel in the previous chapter makes me inclined read the two prophecies as one.  (Besides, idiomatic expressions are often quite difficult to explain.  The natural connection between the two phrases above is certainly much closer than “break a leg” is to “have a good performance.”)  If, however, the phrase is meant to be taken literally, then it would have to refer (very roughly) to the age of two at the oldest.  If that is the case, and if this prophecy is synonymous with that of Immanuel, then Barnes’ idea that Immanuel’s age was two seems more credible. (See notes 7:14-16.)

v. 6: I believe the NRSV’s translation of this verse is the correct one (“melt in fear before Rezin and the son of Remaliah” rather than “rejoice in Rezin”) because the prophecy from v. 5 to v. 10 seems directed exclusively against Judah^[1], not against Judah and Ephraim, and the phrase “rejoice in Rezin” could only apply to Ephraim.

It is difficult for me to understand exactly whom the prophetic pronouncements in this chapter are for and against, but here is my best attempt.

Vs. 1-4 – The pronouncement is against Syria and Ephraim.

Vs. 5-8 –  The pronouncement is against Judah.^[2]

Vs. 9-10 – The pronouncement is against people in “far countries,” which I believe to be Syria and Ephraim.^[3]

Vs. 11-15 – The pronouncement is meant to comfort Isaiah and the faithful^[4] in the face of “this people.”  “This people” must be the wicked in “both houses” (v. 14) of Israel (i.e., Judah and Ephraim).  The pronouncement, therefore, is against the wicked in both Judah and Ephraim.

v. 12: “Conspiracy” might refer to…

1) Judah and Assyria against Syria and Ephraim

If this is the case, Isaiah might be saying, “Do not join in the conspiracy (plan) to unite with Assyria because you fear Syria and Ephraim.”  I do not believe this is correct, however, because it does not follow the parallelism of such constructions in Hebrew poetry.  I would expect the conspiracy to be synonymous with the fear in the second part of the verse.

2) Syria and Ephraim against Judah

If this is the case, Then Isaiah might be saying, “Do not whisper together with paranoia about the alliance between Syria and Ephraim, calling it a ‘conspiracy’ as though it were some potent menace.” This option seems most likely to me.

3) Isaiah against Ahaz

If this is the case, Isaiah might be dispelling rumors that he has been organizing a political conspiracy against Ahaz.  The audience, however, is the faithful of Judah, not Ahaz, so he if this is the case, Isaiah is not defending himself to the king.

4) Judeans (those opposed to an alliance with Assyria) against Ahaz

If this is the case, Isaiah might be saying, “Do not enter a conspiracy against Ahaz and ‘this people,’ nor fear their threats; God will soon deal with them in his own way.

Interestingly, the German translation uses the same term for “conspiracy” here as it does for “holy” in v. 13 (Verschwörung, “conspiracy,” in both places).    Perhaps Luther did this to reflect a paradoxical double meaning that he believed Isaiah intended for this verse and verse 13 to have when considered in the context of each other.  (The Hebrew terms in both verses are differentqesher=conspiracy, qadash=to sanctify.)

Isaiah does create a similar paradoxical juxtaposition in v. 14 by calling God both a sanctuary (for the faithful) and a rock of offense, or stumbling (for the unfaithful), so the paradox that Luther wanted to reveal here could be, “let God be your ‘conspirator’ and the one that you dread, not Assyria” or whoever the conspirators are in v. 12.

Isaiah does seem to enjoy using irony, and paradox, and double meanings in his work.  The Oxford commentary even sees double meaning in the name Immanuel as it is used in v. 8, as if at that point “God is with us” no longer meant “God is with us to deliver us” but “God is with us to punish us.” ^[5]

Along these same lines, think how pleased Isaiah was (or would have been) if he knew of the future meaning the name Immanuel would take on as a sign of the messiah.  In Christ, “God is with us” means not only that he is our deliverer, but also that he is literally among us, walking around.

v. 18: “Here am I” reminds me of “Here am I! Send me,” in 6:8.

^[1] I say it is directed against Judah because the waters of Shiloah, in Jerusalem, are juxtaposed with the waters of Assyria, which “pass through Judah” in v.8 and fill the breadth of the land of Immanuel.

 

^[2] Barnes believes the pronouncement is against Judah and Ephraim (and Syria) because he believes v. 6 should be translated “rejoice in Rezin.”

^[3] Barnes believes the far countries to be Assyria and its vassal nations (178-179).  I am not sure why he believes this, however, since Immanuel is specifically mentioned in v. 10, and Immanuel was meant to be a sign of deliverance from Syria and Ephraim.  These verses might be paraphrased to say, “You foreign powers that band together to destroy us (Judah) will be dismayed because God is with us.”

^[4] The German translation is written in 2^nd person plural.

^[5] I disagree with the commentary on this point because such an interpretation does not seem to fit the context.  But Isaiah’s love of paradox and irony do make the interpretation plausible.

1st Samuel 10 Notes

Chapter 10

 

v. 6: Being “turned into a different person” is a positive thing in this context, whatever it may mean specifically.  I don’t believe it refers only to the time of prophesying (in which case it might mean that he would fall into some type of ecstasy) because v. 9 seems to indicate that it happened before the prophesying.  It might refer to God’s making him bold enough to accept the task.  If so, it doesn’t seem to have been a permanent or irresistible change (10:22).

 

v. 11: “Is Saul among the prophets?” At first this is an expression of genuine surprise that Saul is among the prophets.  It doesn’t seem to have any negative undertones, and the proverb might be applied to anyone who is doing something out of character by displaying a gift which nobody knew he or she had.

I Samuel 1 Notes

Chapter 2

v. 13: It is interesting to note how the depravity of Eli’s sons is presented here.  As best I can understand, the priests’ allotted portions (according to the law) were the breast and thigh (Leviticus 7:31-33 and Exodus 29:26-28) which were not the most prized portions of a sacrifice.  The best portions (fat, kidneys, and so forth) were the sacrifice.  Here, however, it seems that the priests had adopted a different practice that everyone accepted as fair (despite its being unlawful).  This seems in keeping with the general ignorance that dominated the time of the judges.  Nevertheless, the sons of Eli were unwilling even to hold to this second standard of behavior, and openly took the choice parts raw (with the fat).

v. 18: This statement seems intended to point out Samuel as a kind of spiritual prodigy.

I Samuel 1 Notes

Chapter 1

v. 19: I suppose Elkanah lies with Hannah here in response to her telling him about the vow. It seems that she would have told him (Numbers. 30:10-13) and, based on his love for her, this act must have expressed his consent to the vow.  At any rate, Elkanah does not seem surprised when Hannah says she will fulfill the vow in v. 22.