13: "And I will establish the throne of His kingdom for ever;" see Vol. i. p. 131. _Michaelis_ says: "So that that promise to David shall never fail." The עתה does not refer to the _actual_, but to the _ideal_ present, to the first appearance of the Redeemer, to the words: "Unto us a child is born, unto us a Son is given, and the government is upon His shoulder."--This great change is brought about [Pg 93] by the _zeal_ of the Lord who raises this glorious King to His people; comp. John iii. 16. The zeal in itself is only _energy_; the sphere of its exercise is, in every instance, determined by the context. In Exod. xv. 5; Deut. iv. 24; Nah. i. 2, the zeal is the energy of wrath. In the passage before us, as in the Song of Solomon viii. 6, and in chap. xxxvii. 32: "For out of Jerusalem shall go forth a remnant, and escaped ones out of Mount Zion; the zeal of the Lord of hosts shall do this," the zeal of God means the energetic character of His love to Zion. We must, in conclusion, still make a few remarks, on the interpretation of vers. 5 and 6. The older interpreters were unanimous in referring these verses to the Messiah. Even by the Jews, this explanation was abandoned at a subsequent period only. To the Messiah this passage is referred by the Chaldean Paraphrast, by the Commentary on Genesis known by the name _Breshith Rabbah_ in the exposition of Genesis xli. 44 (see _Raim. Martini Pugio fidei_, Vol. iii. sec. 3, chap. xiv. § 6), by Rabbi _Jose Galilaeus_ in the book _Ekha Rabbati_, a Commentary on Lamentations (see _Raim. Matt._ iii. 3 chap. 4, § 13). _Ben Sira_ (fol. 40 ed., Amstel. 1679), mentions among the eight names of the Messiah, the following from the passage before us: Wonderful, Counsellor, El Gibbor, Prince of Peace. But the late Jewish interpreters found it objectionable that the Messiah, in opposition to their doctrinal views, was here described as God; for doctrinal reasons, therefore, they gave up the received interpretation, and sought to adapt the passage to Hezekiah. Among these, however, _Rabbi Lipmann_ allows the Messianic explanation to a certain degree to remain. Acknowledging that the prophecy could not refer exclusively to Hezekiah, he extends it to all the successors from the House of David, including the Messiah, by whom it is to attain its most perfect fulfilment. Among Christian interpreters, _Grotius_ was the first to abandon the Messianic explanation. Even _Clericus_ acknowledges that the predicates are applicable to Hezekiah "_sensu admodum diluto_" only. At the time when Rationalism had the ascendancy, it became pretty current to explain them of Hezekiah. _Gesenius_ modified this view by supposing that the Prophet had connected his Messianic wishes and expectations with Hezekiah, and [Pg 94] expected their realization by him. At present this view is nearly abandoned; after _Gesenius_, _Hendewerk_ is the only one who still endeavours to defend it.