The Pulpit Commentary — Hebrews — Section 60

xvi ii., where the LXX. reads h ..,..,~ h' 11bT&v &3,11.1f>ol, the &-y111(011l11oi, as Isaiah does the instead of ,rnro,1/o,s l<roµ.cu l,r' 110.-<iJ : so that, if 111~,, the B')'•&C.,.,, all being together lE lv&s. the quotation is from the psalm, it is to.ken If it be objected that the children given to from the historie&l book. But is the quotation Isaiah were bis own offspring, and not from the psalm or from Isaiah'? If from the " brethren," as in the antitype, it may be former, it serves (if Ps. xxii. is also David's) replied that it is not the human paternity to complete the type. of the same royal of the "children," but their having been sufferer, showing him reliant on God along given by God to the prophet to be " signs " with his brethren in the day of success, as o.long with him, that is the prominent "'ell as during previous trial. Most com- idea in the original passage, and that, mentators, however, suppose the quotation thus viewed, the words of Isaiah have theu to be from Isaiah, inasmuch as the following close counterpart in those of our Lord; one is from him, not only coming immedi- "The men whioh thou gavest me out of the ately after the first in the original, but also world; thine they were, and thou gavest dependent on it for its meaning. Nor is them me" (John xvii. 6, 9, 11, 12). Such, the introdnotion of the second quotation by then, ma.y be the ground for assigning the Kai wcf>..av conclusive against its being the utterance to Christ, justified by the Messi- continuation of the same original passage, anio character of Old Testament prophecy since it introduces a new idea, to which in general, according to which" the historic attention may be thus drawn. Possibly the sense of the utterance does not exclude the pur- writer, familiar as he was with the Old pose of prophecy; but leaves typical references Testament, had both passages in his view, open which deolare themselves historically the phrase common to both serving as a by some corresponding Messianic fact, and connecting link between David and leo.io.h. hence are recognized afterwards from the And again, Behold I and the children whioh point of view of historic fulfilment" (Meyer). God ha.th given me. The applicability of But when we refer to the LXX. (which in the whole passage in Isaiah (viii. 17, 18) the passage before us varies greatly from to the writer's argument is not at first sight the Hebrew) we find e. further reason. The obvious. It occurs in connection with the LX:X. bas (Isa. viii. 16, 17, 18) "Then shall memorable message to Ahaz, on the occasion be manifest those that see.I the Law that one of the confederacy of Rezin and Peko.h should not learn it. And he will say (,cal against Judah, in the course of which the lp,i), I will wait upon God, who has turnecl prophet foretells (vii. 14) the birth of o.wo.y his face from the house of Israel, and Immanuel In eh. viii and ix. he expands I will put my trust in him. Lo I and the this message, rising into a vein of undoubted children which God hnth given me." Here, Messianic prophecy (see especially lee.. ix. in the absence of any preceding nominative 1-8). In the midst of general dismay and in the singular to be the subject of ip,i, the disbelief the prophet stands firm and un- writer of the Epistle may ho.ve understoocl daunted, presenting himself as a sign as the Messio.h to be the speaker ; and the well as a messenger of the salvation which Seventy also may have so intended the ex- he foretells : " Behold, I :i.nd the children pression. The general drift of the passage, whom the Lord bath given me are for sign, as interpreted in the Epistle, remains the and for wonders in Israel from the Lord of same, though the LXX. more distinctly hosts." The " children" thus associated suggests and justifies its applico.tion to with himsE:lf as signs appear to have been Christ. The only difference is that, accord- his two sons, with their symbolical names, ing to the Hebrew, the prophet speaks and Sbear-jashub and Maher-shalo.1-hash-baz, is regarded as a type; according to the the first of whom be had been commanded LXX., the Antitypo himself is introduced us to tuke with him (vii. 3) on bis first visit speaking, and declaring the type of Iso.iah to Ahaz, and the second of whom (viii. 3) to be fulfilled in himself. had been borne to him by the " prophetess," Vere. 14, 15.-li'oraamuoh then as the and named under a Divine command. His ohildren are partakers of (literally, have been own name also may be regarded in the made partakers of; i.e. so me.de as to she.re "sign" as symbolical, meaning "Jehovah'e alike), blood and flesh (this is the order of salvation." If, then, the words of vers. 17, the words, as in Eph. vL 12, aceording to 18 are quoted as those of the prophet him- the great preponderance of authority; Do- self (and they are certainly bis own in our litzsch sees in it a reference to "the blood- Hebrew text), he is viewed as himself a shedding for the sake of whioh the Se.violll sign, in the sense of type, of the Immanuel entered into the fellowship of bodily life to come. And the point of the quotation with us"), he also himoelf likewise (rather, is that, to complete such typical sign, it in lilce manner; i.e. with "the children") was required that "the children God had took part in the ao.me ; that through death given him '' shoulcl be combined with him he might destroy (1t11T11p-y~"l1, el).uivalent to in the representation. They represent the "bring to 11ought," "render impotent n1  OIi, IL 1-18.] THE EPISTLE TO THE HEBREWS. 51