THE prophet first completes his description of the prevalent iniquity, with special reference to injustice and oppression, as a punishment of which he threatens death and deportation by the hands of the Assyrians, vs. 1—4, He then turns to the Assyrians themselves, God’s chosen instruments, whom he had commissioned against Israel, to punish and degrade it, but whose own views were directed to universal conquest, to illustrate which the As syrian himself is introduced as” boasting of his tributary princes and his rapid conquests, which had met with no resistance from the people or their gods, and threatening Judah with a like fate, unaware of the destruction which awaits himself, imputing his success to his own strength and wisdom, and glorying, though a mere created instrument, over his maker and his mover, vs. 5-15. His approaching doom is then described under the figure of a forest suddenly and almost totally consumed by fire, vs. 16-19. This succession of events is to have the effect of curing the propensity to trust in man rather than God, at least among the elect remnant who survive; for though the ancient promises of great increase shall certainly be verified, only a remnant shall escape God’s righteous judgments, vs. 20—23. To these the Prophet now addresses words of strong encouragement, with a renewed prediction of a judgment on Assyria similar to that on Midian at Oreb and on Egypt at the Red Sea, which is then described, in the most vivid manner, by an exhibition of the enemy’s approach, from post to post, until he stands before Jerusalem, and then, with a resumption of the metaphor before used, his destruction is described as the prostration of a forest—trees and thickets —by a” mighty axe, vs. 24-34.
It is commonly agreed that the close of the chapter relates chiefly, if not wholly, to the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, recorded in ch. 37: 36. The exceptions to this statement, and the arguments on both sides, will be given in the exposition of v. 28.
For the best illustration of the geographical details in vs. 28-32, a gen eral reference may here be given to Robinson’s Palestine, <§> 9 (vol. 2. pp. 104—151).
1. In these four verses, as in the different divisions of the ninth chapter, there is an accusation followed by a threatening of punishment. The sin denounced in the first two verses is that of oppression and injustice. The punishment threatened is desolation by a foreign foe, and its effect, captivity and death. Woe unto them that decree decrees of injustice, and that write oppression which they have prescribed. Many interpreters suppose two different kinds ‘of public functionaries to be here described, viz. judges or magistrates and their clerks or scribes (Aben Ezra, Kimchi, Abarbenel, Grotius, Junius), or evil counsellors and sovereigns or their secretaries (Clericus), or civil rulers and prophets (Hendewerk). The Piel form JCFJS is ex plained as a causative by Pagninus, Montanus, Vatablus, and Minister (jubent scribere). Others suppose the distinction to be simply that between enacting and recording. But the more common and probable opinion is that the parallel verbs are here substantially synonymous, as Ppn originally means to engrave, or inscribe by incision, which was probably the oldest mode of writing. Thus the Septuagint renders both ygdcpovGi. The metaphor of writing is used elsewhere to describe the decrees and providential purposes of God (Isai. 65: 6. Job 13: 26). Here the terms may include both legislative and judicial functions, which are not so nicely distinguished in ancient as in modern theories of government. The divine displeasure is expressed against all abuse of power. The primary sense of h,ix seems to be inanity or nonentity; then more specifically, the absence of truth and moral goodness; and still more positively falsehood, injustice, wickedness in general. The primary import of b^s? is toil or painful labour; then (like the Greek and Latin ndvog, labor) suffering, vexation. It is related to “p^ as the effect to the cause, as the oppression of-the subject to the injustice of the ruler. The proper sense of both words is retained by Cocceius in his version (statuta vanitatis, laborem scribentibus}. The masoretic accents require ^ss to be governed by d’Opia and separated from inra. This makes it necessary to supply a relative before the last verb. Otherwise, it would be more natural to understand D^PSE as a title of office, and to supply the relative before bns. This is pointed out by Aben Ezra as the true construction, and Luther accordingly has Schriftgelehrte as the subject of both clauses. Cocceius makes the whole refer to the efders of the people or hereditary magistrates, and the scribes or doctors of the law, by whom all public (matters were controlled in our Saviour’s,time, By the “ps “Ppn he understands the traditions of the elders, and by bas the yoke which they imposed upon the conscience. It is evident, however, that the Prophet is still de scribing the evils which existed in his own day, although not peculiar to it. The Piel form of the last verb, if it has any distinctive meaning, is a frequentative, and indicates repeated and habitual action.
2. As the first verse describes the sinners and their sin, so the second sets forth its effect upon the people. To turn aside (or exclude) from judgment the weak, and to take away (by violence) the right of the poor (or afflicted) of my people, that widows may be (or so that widows are) their spoil, and the fatherless they plunder. The infinitive indicates the tendency and actual effect of their conduct. The Septuagint omits the preposition and governs judgment by the verb directly pxx/UVoyrfff XQIGIV TTTCO^V). This form of expression frequently occurs in the sense of perverting justice or doing injustice (Deut. 27: 19. Lam. 3: 25. Ex. 23: 6. Deut. 26: 19, 24: 17. 1 Sam. 8:3). Nearly allied to these, in form and meaning, is the phrase to turn one aside in judgment (Prov. 18:5) or in the gate, as the place where courts were held in eastern towns (Amos 5: 12), or with an ellipsis of the second noun to turn the person aside, i. e. to deprive him of his right by false judgment (Mai. 3: 5. Isai. 29: 21), or with an ellipsis of both nouns (Exod. 23: 2). But the phrase here used is to turn one aside from the judgment, and seems intended to express not so much the idea of judg ing wrongfully as that of refusing to judge at all. ‘ Verus sensus est ut arceant pauperes a judicio, vel efficiant ut cadant causa (Calvin).’ The same charge is brought against the rulers of Judah in ch. 1: 23. The ex pression of my people intimates, not only that the sufferers were Israelites, but that they sustained a peculiar relation to Jehovah, who is frequently described in Scripture as the protector of the helpless, and especially of widows and orphans (Ps. 68: 5). The second verb (bn) means to take away by violence, and may here be understood either strictly, or figuratively in the sense of violating justice, as the Vulgate expresses it (ut vim facerent causae humilium).
3. The wicked rulers are themselves addressed, and warned of an approaching crisis, when they must be deprived of all that they now glory in. And (though you are now powerful and rich) what will ye do in the day of visitation, and in the ruin (which) shall come from far (though all may ap pear safe at home)? To whom will ye flee for help, and where will ye leave your glory (for safe-keeping)? The questions imply negation, as if he had said, you can do nothing to protect yourselves, there is no place of conceal ment for your glory. Junius and Tremellius make the construction hypo thetical—what would you do?—to Avhom would you fly?—where could you leave? But as this ‘implies that the contingency alluded to might not occur, it virtually changes a threat into a promise, which would here be out of place, between the woe at the beginning of v. 1 and the menace at the end of v. 4. By the day of visitation Vitringa understands a day of inspection and examination; but this is a modern or a technical meaning of the term. Cocceius understands by the phrase, here and elsewhere, even in Ps. 8: 5, the time when God should be incarnate, and literally visit his people as a man. According to the usage of the Old Testament, the day of visitation is a time when God manifests his presence specially, whether in mercy or in wrath, but most frequently the latter, naoia originally signifies a noise or tumult, and is therefore peculiarly appropriate to the ruin caused by foreign invasions, such as those of the Assyrians and Babylonians, which appear to be alluded to. sonn pnTaa is properly an independent clause—from afar it shall come—but in order to conform the expression to our idiom, a relative may be supplied as in the English version. The by, as Kimchi observes^k in this connexion simply equivalent to bx. The idea of fleeing for help is expressed by the same verb and noun in ch. 20: 6. By TIM we are not simply to understand nobility (Musculus, Forerius, Henderson)—or wealth (Clericus, Lowth, Rosenmiiller)—much less the gains of oppression and in justice (Jarchi)—least of all their idols (Hendewerk)—but whatever they now boasted of and trusted in.
4. It (your glory) does not bow beneath the prisoners, and (yet) they shall fall beneath the slain—i. e. if they do not bow under the captives they shall fall under the slain—or, such of them as do not bow, etc. Be neath may either be strictly understood as meaning under their feet, or simply among them. Junius and Piscator understand it to mean lower than the captives and the slain. DeDieu and Rosenmiiller make it an adverb meaning down. Ewald explains it to mean instead of, in the place or quality of, equivalent to as—as captives and as slain. Cocceius and Umbreit make the first clause interrogative—does he not bow among the captives? Kimchi, DeDieu, Gesenius, and DeWette, render inba, without me, i. e. having forsaken me, or being forsaken by me (Junius)—without my inter position. Some make it mean unless, referring to what goes before—they can do nothing but bow, etc. (Ewald)—or to what follows—unless one bow, etc. they shall fall, etc. The Septuagint and Vulgate, Castalio and Clericus, take ^nbn in the sense of lest or that not, and continue the construction from the preceding verse—where will ye leave your glory, that ye bow not, etc. Luther adopts the same construction, but connects sns with TIM in v. 3. Where will ye leave your glory, that it bow not, etc. This agrees well with Henderson’s explanation of TIM as meaning nobility or chief men, which would account also for the change to the plural form in •^B”1. DeDieu makes TW and ftf-nn the subjects of the verbs—taking nnn as an adverb meaning down or beneath—’ besides that the captive sinks, they shall fall down slain.’ Knobel suggests, as a possible construction, that 5>^ may mean to bow down to the slaughter as in ch. 65: 12, in which case both verbs would express the idea of a violent death. On the whole, the most natural interpretation of this difficult and much disputed verse is that which explains it as a solemn declaration that their glory and especially their noble chiefs must either go into captivity or fall in battle. The concluding formula—/or all this his wrath is not turned back and still his hand is stretched out—again suggests the fearful thought that all these accumulated judgments would be insufficient to arrest the progress of the sinner or appease the wrath of God.
5. The Assyrian is now distinctly brought into view, as the instrurmint which God would use in punishing his people. But instead of simply executing this task, the Assyrians would seek their own ends and exceed their commission, and for this they must themselves be punished. The Prophet begins therefore with a woe against them. Woe unto Asshur (the As syrian or Assyria itself), the rod of my anger, and the staff in their (the Assyrians’) hand is my indignation, i. e. its instrument. According to Kimchi, ^n is merely a nar-.p V’^j or particle of calling, by which God summons the Assyrian to punish Israel. So Munster: O Assur (veni ut sis) virga, etc. It is also rendered O by Pagninus, Montanus, Forerius, Vatablus, and Calvin, who suggests however that it may be taken as an ex pression of grief (alas I) on God’s part, at the necessity of punishing his people. Lowth translates it Ho! DeWette Ha! But the analogy of v. 1 and the subsequent threatenings are decisive in favour of the common ver sion. A pronoun of the second person is supplied after in by Clericus (vae vobis Assyrii), and J. D. Michael is (wehe dir, Assyrien), while DeDieu supplies the substantive verb after IWK (Heus! Assyria est virga, etc). But it is simpler to connect trie particle as usual directly with the noun, as in the Septuagint (oval UaavQioig) and most other versions. Junius, Piscator, and the margin of the English Bible give to the second vav the sense of for or though, which is needless and unauthorized. The Vulgate, Aben Ezra, Luther, Calvin, DeDieu, Vatablus, and Clericus, take Kin as a demonstrative equivalent to hie, ille, ipse, or the like. Pagninus, Cocceius, Schmidius, Vitringa, Rosenmuller, treat it as a relative (the rod which), and Gesenius gives the same sense, by supposing an ellipsis of tart£x, and making join the substitute or index of the verb to be. For CTO, Seeker reads tnrs (in the day of my wrath), a mere conjecture. The preposition is omitted by Luther and Clericus (est manus eorum). The words DT^ Kin are rejected by Hitzig and Ewald as a gloss, on the ground that they render the two clauses inconsistent, one describing Assyria as itself the rod, the other •putting a rod into Assyria’s own hand, whereas in v. 14 Assyria is still rep resented as the rod and not as the rod-bearer. Hendewerk, DeWette, and Knobel, avoid the conclusion by connecting ^£X any with the verb to be supplied in the second clause—’ the rod of my anger and the staff of my indignation, it is in their hand.’ But in v. 24 (cf. ch. 9: 3) Assyria re appears as a rod-bearer, and the chief point and beauty of the verse before us lies in the alleged inconsistency of representing the Assyrian, by whose rod the Israelites were smitten, as himself a mere rod in the hand of God. Such emendations are as puerile in taste as they are inconsistent with the favourite German canon, that the harder reading is presumptively the true one. Any school-boy can expound the hardest passage in the classics by omitting what he pleases on the score of inconcinnity. The disputed words are re tained by Gesenius, Maurer, Hendewerk, DeWette, Umbreit, Knobel. According to Junius, Hendewerk, and DeWette, ^aST is governed by FISTS (the staff is in their hand of my indignation), and Schmidius, Clericus, Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, give the same sense by repeating Ji:aa before “ast (q. d. the staff in their hand is the staff of my indignation). The Septuagint connects the last word of this verse with the next (r^v ony^v pov \
6. Upon (or against) an impious nation (i. e. Israel, including Ephraim and Judah) will 1 send him (the Assyrian), and against the people of my wrath (i. e. the people that provokes it and deserves it and is to experience it) I will commission him (or give him his orders), to take spoil and to seize prey (literally to spoil spoil and to prey prey), and to place (or render) it (the people) a trampling (a thing to be trodden under foot, a common figure for extreme degradation) like the mire of streets. See the same comparison in ch. 5: 25 and Ps. 18: 43.—According to Cocceius the use of the word ^la in application to Israel implies that they had now become gentiles or heathen. But the word seems to be simply used as a poetical equivalent to cs. On the meaning of spn, vide supra ch. 9:16. Aben Ezra, Lowth, Gesenius and others, explain people of my wrath as meaning simply the people at whom I arn angry; but a stronger meaning seems to be re-^ quired by the form of the expression and the context. Cocceius, with per verse ingenuity, refers the suffix in wss> to d9, which could not take it in construction, and translates the phrase populum excandescentiae meum, implying that they were (or had been) his people, but were now the objects of his wrath. The Septuagint changes the sense by omitting ^mss (rop spy Aar£). The true sense is not ill expressed in the paraphrase ofForerius, populum quern duriter tractare decrevi. Piscator understands-by ^=n ii.a the Jews exclusively, in which he is followed by Henderson, who argues from vs. 9—11, that the kingdom of the ten tribes is regarded in this passage as destroyed already. But, as Vitringa had before observed, the Assyrians did not reduce Judah to an extreme of desolation, and in Sennacherib’s invasion Jerusalem, though pre-eminently guilty, was unharmed. Besides, the connexion between this and the next chapter forbids the exclusive reference to Judah.
7. The Assyrian is now described as an unconscious instrument in God’s hand, and as entertaining in his own mind nothing.but ambitious plans of universal conquest. And he (Assyria personified, or the king of Assyria) no so will think (will not imagine for what purpose he was raised up, or will not intend to-execute my will), and his heart not so will think (or purpose); for (on the contrary) to destroy (is) in his heart, and to cut off nations not a few, i. e. by a litotes common in Hebrew, very many nations. According. to Cocceius n^i -p s6 (from rra^i to resemble) means he will not (or does not) think as I do. But the sense of imagining or pur posing appears to be fully justified by usage.
8. This verse introduces the proof and illustration of his selfishness and pride. For he will say (or giving it a descriptive form, he says) are not my princes altogether “kings, or at the same time kings, mere princes with respect to me, but kings as to all the world besides? By exalting his tributary princes or the nobles of his court, he magnifies himself the more. The oriental monarchs, both in ancient and modern times, have affected the title of Great King (Isai. 36: 4. Hos. 8: 10), and King of kings (Ezek. 26: 7. Dan. 2: 37), corresponding to the Greek pfyaloi fiuaifaTs, flaadsie jWtAeW, and the Persian sLwwJls&Li. This is the more offensive because such titles properly belong to God albrte (Ps. 95: 3. Dan. 2; 47. 8: 25. Matth. 5: 35).
9. Having boasted of his princes, he now boasts of his achievements Is not Calno like Carchemish 1 Have they not been equally subdued by me? Or is not Hamath like Arpad? Or is not Samaria like Damascus 1 Similar boastings were uttered by Rabshakeh (ch. 36: 19, 20. 37: 12, 13). These conquests were the more remarkable because so speedily achieved, and because the Assyrians had before confined themselves within their own limits. All the towns named were further north than Jerusalem, and prcbably commanded the navigation of the two great rivers, Tigris and Euphrates. Carchemish was a fortified town on an island in the Euphrates, at the mouth of the Chaboras, called by the Greeks KIQXTJGIOV, and in Latin Cercusium. It had its own king (Isai. 37: 13) and its own gods (Isai. 36: 19), and was taken by Tiglath-pileser (2 Kings 15: 29). Calno was the Ctesiphon of the Greeks, on the east bank of the Tigris, opposite Seleucia. It is identified by Kimchiwith the Calneh of Gen. 10: 10, and by Bochart with the Canneh of Ezek. 27: 23. Hamath was a city of Syria, on the Qrontes, the mouth of which river, according to Keith (Land of Israel, ch. 2. § 3), is the entering into Hamath, sometimes mentioned as the northern boundary of Canaan in its widest extent (Num. 34: 8. Josh. 13: 5). It was called by the Greeks Epiphania. Abulfeda, the Arabian historian, reigned there about the beginning of the fourteenth century. It is now one of the largest towns in Asiatic Turkey, having about 100,000 in habitants. Arpad another town of Syria, near Hamath, with which it is several times named. Junius and Paulus regard it as the name of a region. Grotius, Doderlein and others, confound it with Arvad in Phenicia (Gen. 10: 8); but none of the ancient versions do so, and i is not interchangeable with a. It is mentioned last in Jer. 49: 23, and is probably no longer in existence. According to Jerome, there were two Hamaths, one the same with Epiphania, the other with Antioch, the Hamath Rabba of Amos 6: 2. Vitringa supposes the Hamath here mentioned to be not the Epiphania but the Emesa (or Emissa) of the Greek and Roman writers. The latest authorities are all in favour of the other explanation. According to Jarchi, the Assyrian in this verse is still boasting of his tributaries—e as the sons of Carchejnish are princes and rulers, so are those of Calno ‘—which is alto gether arbitrary. The Targum, followed by AbenEzra, Calvin, and Gill, refers the questions of this verse to the future. Shall not Calno be as Carchemish? i. e. as I have subdued Carchemish, shall I not in like manner subdue Calno? But the great majority of writers understand the passage as explained above, although they differ in the form of their translations. Some adhere strictly to the form of the original without supplying any thing (Vulgate, Calvin, Cocceius, Vitringa). Some supply the present of the verb to be (Luther, Piscator, Clericus, Lowth, Barnes, Henderson, Ewald, Knobel). Some introduce another verb—shall it not perish (Aben Ezra)—did it not happen (ging’s nicht? Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Umbreit). J. D. Michaelis omits the interrogation, and the Peshito substitutes behold! 6& t«, as usual, continues the interrogative introduced by »Vi (Nordheimer, <§> 1090. 4. «.). It is most exactly rendered or not (oder nicht), by Hendewerk, Ewald and Umbreit—less exactly, as a simple interrogative without negation, by Luther, Lowth, Barnes and Henderson—as a negative interrogation, but without expressing fix, by Hitzig and Vitringa—as a mere disjunctive (oder) by Gesenius.
10. As my hand hath found (i. e. reached and seized) the idol-king doms (worshippers of idols)—and their images (anglice, whose images were more) than (those of) Jerusalem and Samaria—the apodosis of the sen-
tence follows in the next verse. Barnes explains found as meaning found them helpless; and J. H. Michaelis, found strength to subdue them; both which are forced and arbitrary. Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, suppose it to mean struck, as an arrow finds the mark; but this idea is rather implied than expressed, both here and in Psalm 21:9. I Sam. 23: 17. The ideas naturally suggested are those of detecting and reaching. The original import of b*>^!< is retained in translation by Cocceius and Vitringa (regna nihili), both of whom however understand it to mean idols. The singular form is retained by Theodotion (rov eidottov), the Vulgate (regna idoli), and Umbreit (des Gotzen). Ewald renders the whole phrase Gotzen-Lander. Cocceius supposes that in using this expression, the king of Assyria is made to speak rather in the person of a Jew than in his own (pro eo quod requirebat TO TTQMOV personae, substituitur quod requirit veritas rei). Grotius understands him to express contempt of these foreign gods as in their nature inferior to his own; but the reference is rather to their having proved unable to protect their votaries. The heathen nations of antiquity do not seem to have denied the real existence and divinity of one another’s gods, but merely to have claimed superior honours for their own.—Instead of the comparative sense than, the Vulgate gives to “,^ its local sense of from (de)? which seems to mean that the idols of the kingdoms were derived from Israel, a fact which Jarchi does not scruple to assert, though not only,unsupported but directly contradicted by all history. Vatablus gives the same construction but refers the words, with less improbability, to the inferior and dependent towns of Israel, as having learned idolatry from the royal cities. On the whole, however, though the sentence is at best obscure, the most satisfactory construction, both in a grammatical and historical point of view, is that adopted by the great majority of writers, not excepting the most learned of the Rabbins, David Kimchi, and which takes *,a as a particle of comparison. Kimchi and Calvin govern Samaria and Jerusalem directly by the preposition; most other writers repeat images before them. The point of the comparison is not expressed in the original; those versions are too definite which render it more numerous, more precious, or more powerful, as all these particulars may be included. The second clause is paren thetical and disturbs the structure of the sentence by leaving the comparison, with which it opens, incomplete, although the remainder is sufficiently implied in the parenthesis itself. As my hand has found the idol-kingdoms [so shall it find Samaria and Jerusalem.] This, which would seem to be the natural apodosis, is formally excluded but substantially supplied by the last clause of the sentence as it stands. As if he had said, ’ Since my hand has found the idol-kingdoms whose images exceeded those of Jerusalem and Samaria, much more shall it find Jerusalem and Samaria themselves.’ But instead of a protasis without an apodosis, Gesenius and Maurer describe the sentence as a double protasis with one apodosis. ’ As my hand has found the idol-kingdoms (whose images exceeded those of Jerusalem and Samaria), and as I have done to Samaria itself, shall I not, etc.’ This supposes Sa maria to be regarded, even in v. 10, as already conquered.
11. Shall I not, as I have done to Samaria and to her idols, so do to Jerusalem and her gods? The interrogative particle, which properly be longs to the second verb, is placed at the beginning of the sentence, in order to give prominence to its interrogative form, which involves an affirmation of the strongest kind. This effect is wholly neutralized by rendering &6n much more (Piscator), furthermore (Hendewerk), yes (Ewald), or behold (Gesenius, Hitzig). Because an interrogative construction is employed in Hebrew where in other tongues a simple exclamation would be used, it does not follow that the one can be substituted for the other without doing violence to the usage and genius of the language. The facts alleged by Gesenius (in his Thesaurus s. v.), that xbn, as used in the Books of Kings, is generally changed in Chronicles to nan, and that the Septuagint frequently translates the former Idov, may prove a change of idiomatic usage, but cannot change the meaning of?6n itself, or make that meaning less acceptable to every un sophisticated taste than the arbitrary substitute proposed. Still more Objectionable is the omission of s^n altogether. Luther, Vitringa, and J. D. Michaelis, give the verb in this interrogation a subjunctive form,—may, might, could, or should I not do 1 It is best however to retain the simple future, as most writers do.—The English Version and some others use the same word to translate n^bx and rpaxs, which are in fact synonymous, although the latter signifies originally trouble, sorrow, with reference perhaps to the ultimate effect of image worship on the worshippers. The two words are differently rendered by the Septuagint (XSIQQTTODJTOIS, sidotioii), the Vulgate (idolis. simulacris), the Targum, Junius, Vitringa, Gesenius, Ewald, Lowth (idols, images).
12. To the boastful speech of the Assyrian succeeds a prediction of his fate. Although he had been suffered to proceed so far, and would be suffered to proceed still further, in the work of subjugation, till he reached the very verge of Zion and the portals of Jerusalem, God had determined that the work should go no further, but be there cut short by the infliction of a signal vengeance on the selfishness and pride of the invader. And it shall be (i. e. the end of all this glorying shall be) that the Lord will cut his work short at Mount Zion and at Jerusalem. (Yes, even there) will 1 visit (i. e. manifest my presence for the purpose of inflicting punishment) on the fruit (or outward exhibition) of the greatness of heart (i. e. arrogance and pride) of the If ing of Assyria, and on the ostentation (or display) of his loftiness of eyes (or looks, a common scriptural expression for great haughtiness). His work may mean the Assyrian’s work of conquest, or the Lord’s own work of punishment, in reference either to Assyria or Israel. Either of these senses may be preferred without effect upon, the meaning of the sentence. By the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, God may be said to have cut short the work of that invader, or to have cut short his own work by accomplishing his purpose of destruction, or to have cut short his own work of punishing his people, by relieving them from danger. The last of these senses may, however, be retained, and yet the general meaning of the first clause wholly altered, as is actually done by nearly all interpreters, who take ^3 in the sense of when, and read the clause as it is rendered in the English Bible. It shall come to pass, when the Lord hath performed his whole work on Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, that I will punish, etc. i. e. the instrument of punishment shall be destroyed as soon as it has done its work. According to this view of the passage, the completion of God’s work upon Mount Zion is a previous condition of his punishing Assyria; according to the other, the completion and the punishment are one and the same thing. The former interpretation is that unanimously given by all writers known to me, excepting Hitzig, who adopts a singular construction of his own, disregarding the accents and connecting in Mount Zion and Jerusalem with the second clause. He gives to ID how ever like the rest its more unfrequent sense of when, whereas the first interpretation above stated makes it as usual equivalent to on. The principal objection to this new construction, next to the great weight of authority against it, is the meaning which it puts upon the preposition before Zion and Jerusalem. This, it is said, can only mean within the walls, and cannot there fore have respect to the destruction of the host without. But the preposition sometimes denotes mere proximity, even when prefixed to nouns de noting place, e. g. ‘psa at the fountain, I Sam. 29: 1, *QD “inaa by the river of Chebar, Ezek. 10: 15, and 3^9 “11:1:2 at the rock Oreb, in this very chapter, v. 26. (See Gesenius’s Thesaurus, torn. 1. p. 172.) To the common explanation it may be objected that 2231 does not mean simply to finish, but to finish abruptly or cut short (Isai. 38: 12. Job 6: 9), which is certainly not so appropriate to the deliberate execution of a purpose as to its sudden interruption. It is true that according to Cocceius, Vitringa, and Gesenius (in Thesauro), there is an allusion to the weaver’s cutting out the web when it is finished; but there seems to be no sufficient ground for this assertion. J. D. Michaelis and Gesenius translate “ipSK as a third person, which removes the appearance of grammatical irregularity, but only by the sacrifice of strict adherence to the form of the original, which, when attain able, adds greatly to the value of a version, both in point of utility and taste. In this case the enallage is highly emphatic—£ the Lord will cut short’— yes ’ I will visit.’ There is the same objection to the gratuitous omission of •”PiTi by Luther, Clericus, Piscator, J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Henderson and Ewald. That phrase is not an idiomatic pleonasm, or intended to de termine the futurity of what directly follows—but an emphatic clause connecting this verse with the one before it—q. d.: such are the boasts and such the expectations of Assyria, but it shall be, i. e. the end shall be, the end of all this glorying and of all these threats shall be, that the Lord will cut short, etc. J. D. Michaelis is singular in giving to the verb “ipsx the sense oflooking down upon (wird «r herabblicken). Here, as in ch. 9: 8, greatness of heart is a temper opposite to that of the lowly in heart and the poor in spirit, who are represented in the New Testament as peculiarly acceptable to God. (Matt, 5: 3. 11: 29.) According to Henderson there is an implied antithesis between the looks considered as the leaves and the actions as the fruit of the same tree, all which is more ingenious than natural. Gesenius and Maurer seem to restrict the meaning of rvittsn to mere ostentation and parade; but it is best to take it in a wider sense, as including all the outward manifestations of an arrogant spirit.
13. The Assyrian is again introduced as speaking, and as arrogating £o himself the two most necessary qualities of a successful ruler, to wit, energy and wisdom, military prowess and political sagacity. The last clause gives the proofs of the assertion in the first, and mentions three things which the boaster had disposed of at his pleasure, political arrangements, money, and men. For he saith (in heart and life, if not in words) by the strength of my (own) hand I have done (all this), and by my (own) wisdom, for I am wise (as well as strong), and (in the exercise of these two attributes) I remove the bounds of the nations, and rob their hoards, and bring down, like a mighty man (as I am), the inhabitants. J. H. Michaelis takes ^rviss in the sense of making gain or profit, as in Ez. 28: 4; but it is better to translate it I have done, and understand it as referring to the series of successes just before enumerated.—Cocceius and Vitringa make the next clause mean, it is through my wisdom that I have acted prudently, a construction far inferior, in simplicity and strength, to the obvious and common one pro posed above. The removing of the bounds appears to be explained in the Targum as descriptive of his conquering progress from one province to another (fcwi’rob w^aa); but the true sense is the more specific one of de stroying the distinctions between nations by incorporation in a single empire. nrnrmw is variously rendered by the Septuagint (cqv iayvv avtmv), Junius (instructissima loca eorum), and Cocceius (et fixa eorum), but according to its etymology denotes things laid up or kept in store for future use; hence treasures, with particular reference to their being hoarded. The Keri ^D for •paw is unnecessary, as the a in the latter is a caph veritatis, denoting 13 comparison, not with something wholly different, but with the class to which the thing itself belongs. Thus like a mighty man does not imply that the person spoken of was not of that description, but that he was—c like a mighty man or hero as I am.’ As the primary meaning of H1-^ is to sit, some writers explain t^w as meaning those who sit on high (Vulgate, J. D. Michaelis) or on thrones (Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel), and irvnin in the sense of displacing or dethroning. There is no necessity, however, for departing from the less poetical but more familiar sense, inhabitants and bringing down, i. e. subduing.
14. The rapidity and ease of the Assyrian conquests is expressed by a natural and beautiful comparison. In seizing on the riches of the nations, the conqueror had encountered no more difficulty than if he had been merely taking eggs from a forsaken nest, without even the impotent resistance which the bird, if present, might have offered, by its cries and by the flapping of its wings. My hand has found (i. e. reached and seized) the strength (or more specifically, the pecuniary strength, the wealth) of the nations, and like the gathering of (or as one gathers) eggs forsaken, so have I gathered all the earth (i. e. all its inhabitants and their possessions) and there was none that moved a wing, or opened a mouth, or chirped.—The present form, which Hendewerk adopts throughout the verse, is equally grammatical, but less in keeping with the context, which seems to represent the speaker as describing not his habits but his past exploits. Clericus renders b^n by moenia, as being the strength or defences of a besieged city, and the Vulgate takes it as an abstract meaning strength itself, which is its primary import; but interpreters are generally agreed in giving it the more specific sense of wealth, or strength derived from property, an idea which seems to be more fully expressed by our word substance. The meaning of D^SS is here again obscured in the English Version by the use of the singular form people, for which Lowth has substituted peoples, thereby conveying the true sense of the original, but at the same time violating the prevalent usage of the English language. Hitzig gives to b xsv the sense of reaching after; but according to usage and the common judgment of interpreters, the particle is here a mere connective of the verb and object. The infinitive construction ^SKS is expressed in the passive form by the Vulgate (sicut colliguntur), Calvin, Clericus, and Vitringa, and as a verb of the first person by Junius (quasi reciperem) and Cocceius (quasi auferrem), but as an indefinite construction by Luther (wie man aufrafft) and most modern writers. The pronoun before ^nsox is omitted in some versions as unnecessary to the sense, but it is for that very reason emphatic and adds to the boastful tone of the Assyrian’s language. Fiirst and Ewald follow some of the Rabbins in making Ti3, which is elsewhere intransitive, agree with Spa (flatternden Fliigels), which is itself construed adverbially by Calvin (qui abigeret ala) and Cocceius (divagans ala). The construction of r.ssxa as a gerund by Clericus (ad pipiendum) and Gesenius (zum Gezirp) is a needless departure from the form of the original. The word peeped (pipio) used in the English version is not only obsolete but liable to be confounded with another of like form from another root. (See Richardson’s English Dictionary, vol. I. p. 1433.) The terms of the last clause may be understood as having reference to young birds; but in that case there are two distinct comparisons confusedly mingled in one sentence. In either case the language is designed to be descriptive of entire non-resistance to the progress of the Assyrian conquests, and although designedly exaggerated in expression, agrees well with the historical statements, not only of the Scriptures, but of Ctesias, Berosus, Herodotus, Diodorus, Justin, and Trogus.
15. Yet in all this the Assyrian was but an instrument in God’s hand, and his proud self-confidence is therefore as absurd as if an axe or a saw or a rod or a staff should exalt itself above the person wielding it. Shall the axe glorify itself above the (person) hewing with it? Or shall the saw magnify itself above the (person) handling it? (This is indeed) like a rod’s wielding those who wield it, like a staff’s lifting (that which is) no wood (viz. a man). The idea is not merely that of boastful opposition but of preposterous inversion of the true relation between agent and instrument, between mind and matter.—The potential form may or can the axe (Luther, Clericus, J. D. Michaelis), and the present form does the axe (Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, DeWette, Ewald), although not incorrect, are less emphatic than the future proper, shall the axe glorify itself 1 i. e. shall it be suffered so to do? Would not such assumption, if it were possible, be intolerable? Barnes corrects the common version by omitting the reflexive pronoun after boast; but ->xBm does not simply mean to use boastful language, but by boasting to exalt one’s self in comparison with others. (Judges 7: 2.) The preposition bs therefore does not mean merely in the presence of (Hitzig), nor even against (English Bible), but should have its proper sense of over or above. Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson omit the or before the second question, perhaps because the English Bible gives it in italics; but the Hebrew word has often a disjunctive meaning, when preceded in construction by the common interrogative particle. A figurative sense is put upon b^sm by Luther (trotzen), Gesenius (briistet), and the later German writers; but the literal version magnify itself is perfectly intelligible and retains the precise form of the original, cpn is variously rendered draw (Septuagint, Vulgate), shake (Calvin), guide (Cocceius), move (Clericus), etc. The essential idea is that of motion, determined and qualified by the nature of the thing moved. The Hebrew verb is specially appropriated to denote the handling or wielding of a tool or implement (Deut. 23: 25. 27: 5. Ex. 20: 25). Piscator, Gataker, and others, take the D before the verbs of the last clause as a specification of time—when one shakes a rod or when a staff is lifted up—but this construction, al though not ungrammatical, introduces several very harsh ellipses. A writer quoted by Vatablus takes the double 3 as the sign of a comparison, as—so, but this would be comparing a thing merely with itself. Most interpreters follow the Septuagint version in rendering the particle as if. This is no doubt the sense, but the precise construction is like the lifting of a staff, not in the passive sense of being lifted (oo£ av tig «’«?? gdpdov), but in the active one of lifting something else, like a rod’s lifting those who lift it. The construction which makes nx a preposition meaning in the power of, dependent on, is arbitrary in itself and does not yield so good a sense. The Vulgate, the Peshito, and the English Version, give ta’nn a reflexive sense, and either read ^3 for rs, or take the latter in the sense of against, as Calvin and Piscator do. The margin of the English Bible gives another version, which is that of Junius and Cocceius, and the one now commonly adopted as the simplest and most natural.—Gesenius, Hitzig, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel, make iwi?a a pluralis majestaticus designed to enhance the contrast between mind and matter. It is much more natural, however, to explain it as a plural proper, as is done by Maurer, Hendewerk, and Henderson.—As examples of misplaced ingenuity I add, that J. D. Michaelis (in his Notes for the Unlearned) explains E2U) as the stock or handle in distinction from the iron of the axe or saw, and that DeDieu proposes to take o^n as the plural of in a mountain—f as if the staff were mountains, not a piece of wood ‘—a construction which is not only forced, but inconsistent with the strict correspondence of Jpiia and d^na. The same objection lies against Forerius’s construction of the last clause—c *as if the lifting of a staff (were) not (the lifting of) *a piece of wood.’—Junius, Cocceius, and most later writers, understand f5~&& as a peculiar idiomatic compound (like ^sraft and D?’&&, Deut. 32: 21, ttJ^-J& and &IK-&& Isai. 31: 8, comp. Jer. 5: 7), meaning that which is very far from being wood, of an opposite nature to wood, i. e. according to Cocceius and Henderson, God himself, but more correctly man, since the case supposed is that of a man brandishing a rod or staff, the relation between them being merely used to illustrate that between Jehovah and Assyria considered as his instrument. The last clause of this verse has not only been very variously explained by modern writers, but given great difficulty to the old translators, as appears from the inconsistent and unmeaning versions of it.
16. Therefore (on account of this impious self-confidence) the Lord, the Lord of Hosts, will send upon his fat ones leanness, and under his glory shall burn a burning like the burning of fire. The accumulation of divine names calls attention to the source of the threatened evil, and reminds the Assyrian that Jehovah is the only rightful Sovereign and the God of Battles. This combination occurs nowhere else, and even here above fifty manuscripts and twelve printed editions read mm for ^ix, and thereby assimilate the form of expression to that used in ch. 1: 24. 3: 1. 10: 33. 19: 5. This emendation is approved by Lowth, Ewald, and Henderson, who says that “ in consequence of Jewish superstition, the divine name has been tam pered with by some copyist.” It is much more probable, however, that an unusual form was exchanged for a common one in a few copies, than that Jewish superstition tampered with the divine name in a single place, and left it untouched in at least four others.—Gesenius and DeWette use the present form sends; but in a case of threatening, the future proper is far more appropriate. This particular form of the Hebrew verb is often used with the same preposition to denote the infliction of penal sufferings. The best translation, therefore, is not send among but send upon, implying the action of a higher power (compare Ezek. 7: 3 and 5:7). Hitzig regards •naB’-zra as an abstract meaning fatnesses or fatness, and Cocceius, Vitringa, and J. H. Michaelis translate it by a plural neuter (pinguia) meaning fat things or parts; Ewald more explicitly, his fat limbs, which supposes an allusion to a body. Most interpreters, however, understand it as an epithet of persons (fat ones), as in Ps. 78: 31, viz. the Assyrian warriors or their chiefs, so called as being stout and lusty. The sending of leanness upon them seems to be a figure for the reduction of their strength, with or without allusion to the health of individuals. Some suppose an exclusive reference to the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army, others a more general one to the de cline of the Assyrian power. Both are probably included, the first as one of the most striking indications of the last.—By glory we are not to under stand the splendid dress of the Assyrian soldiers (Jarchi), nor the army (Vitringa), nor the great men of the army or the empire (Lowth), nor the glory ing or boasting of the king (Kimchi), but magnificence and greatness in the general, civil and military, moral and material. The preposition rnn may either mean instead of, in exchange for (Peshito), or in the place of, i. e. in the place occupied by (Junius), or literally under, which is probably the true sense, as it agrees best with the figure of a fire, which is then described as kindled at the bottom of the splendid fabric, with a view to its more complete destruction—Luther, Calvin, the English Version and some others, make “ip”1 a transitive verb meaning to kindle and a^reeino- with Jehovah, or O O the king of Assyria; but in all the other places where it occurs it is intransitive, and is so rendered by the Vulgate (ardebit) and the recent writers, agreeing with ^, which is not here an infinitive, though so explained by Cocceius (ardebit ardendo), but a noun. Cocceius is singular in supposing that this last clause is descriptive of the rage and spite excited in Sennacherib by his first repulse from Judah. Other interpreters regard it as descriptive of the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army, as caused by a burning disease or pestilential fever (Junius, J. H. Michaelis, J. D. Michaelis)—others more naturally as a lively figure for the suddenness, completeness, and rapidity of the destruction, without direct allusion to the means or cause (Calvin, Clericus, Vitringa, Rosenmiiller, Barnes, Henderson). Gesenius, who excludes any special reference to Sennacherib’s army, understands by the fire here described the flames of war in general.
17. And, the Light of Israel shall be for a fire (i. e. shall become one, or shall act as one), and his Holy One for aflame, and it shall burn and devour his (the Assyrian’s) thorns and briers in one day (i. e. in a very short time.)—II’K always denotes light, literal or figurative. In the places cited by Barnes (ch. 44: 16. 47: 14. Ezek. 5: 2), the idea ofjlre is de noted by a cognate but distinct form (^itf). According to Jarchi, the Light of Israel is the Law of God, while another rabbinical tradition applies it to Hezekiah. It is no doubt intended as an epithet of God himself, so called because he enlightened Israel by his Word and Spirit, and cheered them by the light of his countenance. There may be an allusion to the pillar of cloud, and some think to the angel of God’s presence who was in it. The Vulgate even renders vsb in igne which is wholly unauthorized. There seems to be no sufficient reason for supposing with Vitringa that the Prophet alludes to the worship of Light or the God of Light among the heathen under the names “Qyog, Horns, probably derived from *iix. There seems to be an antithesis between light and fire. He )who was a light to Israel was a fire to Assyria. Some of the early Jews read visvip as a plural, meaning his saints, i. e, the pious Jews in the days of Hezekiah. The thorns and the briers are explained by Jarchi as a figure for the chiefs of the Assyrians—by Lowth, Ewald, Umbreit and others, for the common soldiers as distinguished from the officers and princes, the forest-trees of the ensuing context—but by most interpreters, with more probability, as a figure for the whole body, either in allusion to their pointed weapons (Gesenius, Henderson), or to their malice and vexation of the Jews (Kimchi, Grotius, Hitzig), or to their combustible nature and fitness for the fire (Clericus, Barnes). Vitringa supposes a threefold allusion to their number and con fusion as a great mixed multitude, their mischievous hostility, and their impending doom. Here as in the foregoing verse, fire is mentioned as a rapid and powerful consuming agent, without express allusion to the manner or the means of the destruction threatened.
18. And the glory (i. e. beauty) of his (the Assyrian’s) forest and his fruitful field, from soul to body (i. e. totally), will he (the Lord) con-
sume, and it shall be like the wasting away of a sick man.—Clericus reads their forest, but the reference is not so much to the Assyrians collectively as to the king who was their chief and representative. By his forest some writers understand his host collectively, his individual soldiers or their arms being the trees which composed it; others, the chief men as distinguished from the multitude, the thorns and briers of the verse preceding.—The Vulgate, Clericus, Rosenmuller and Augusti, take iVa^o as a proper name (his Carmel), the mountain or mountains of that name being noted for fertility. The name, however, is itself significant, being derived by some of the older writers from *o a pasture, and s&v full (Vitringa) or VIE to cut (Bochart) —by others from tna a vineyard and ^x the name of God, a vineyard of God, i. e. a choice or fruitful vineyard (Lowth, Lee)—but by most of the recent lexicographers from ttna a vineyard, with the addition of ^, making it diminutive (Gesenius, Winer, Fiirst). In its primary import it may be ap plied to any highly cultivated or productive spot, a garden, vineyard, or chard, or the like, and its appropriation as a proper name is altogether secondary. Henderson renders it plantation. Here it may either be equivalent and parallel to forest, in which case it would signify a park stocked with choice and noble trees (Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, DeWette)—or it may be in antithesis to forest, and denote a cleared and cultivated field (Ewald, Umbreit, etc.). Kimchi would understand by forest the chief men, and by fruitful field their wealth and especially their military stores. Vitringa thinks it possible that the forest is Nineveh the royal city, the fruitful field the country at large, and the glory of both the wealth and magnificence of the whole empire, as concentrated and displayed in Sennacherib’s army. The obvious and true interpretation is, that the Prophet meant to represent the greatness of Assyria under figures borrowed from the vegetable world, and for that purpose uses terms descriptive of the most impressive aspects under which a fruitful land presents itself, forests and harvestfields, the two together making a complete picture, without the necessity of giving to each part a distinctive import. The forest and the fruitful field, here applied to Assyria, are applied by Sennacherib himself to Israel (ch. 37: 24). Cocceius and Vitringa construe lisa as an absolute nominative—and as to the glory—but it is rather governed by the verb in the next clause.—As the terms soul and flesh are strictly inapplicable to the trees and fields, we must either suppose that the Prophet here discards his metaphor, and goes on to speak of the Assyrians as men, or that the phrase Is a proverbial one, meaning body and soul, i. e. altogether, and is here ap plied without regard to the primary import of the terms, or their agreement with the foregoing figures. Either of these explanations is better than to understand the clause with Vatablus, as meaning that the fire would not only take away the lives (^sa) of the Assyrians, but consume their bodies (^n)—or with the Dutch Annotators, that the destruction would extend both to men (ITSD) and to beasts (“itDn)—or with Musculus, that the progress of the fatal stroke would be not ab extra but ab intra, which J. D. Michaelis regards as an exact description of the plague.—In the English Ver sion, the construction is continued from the preceding verse, as if rbs* and the verbs of that verse had a common subject. But as those verbs were feminine to agree with mnb, so this is masculine to agree with Jehovah, or the Light of Israel, or the Angel of his Presence. Henderson restores the Hebrew collocation, but makes it the subject of the verb consume. Lowth and Barnes more correctly supply he. This verb is rendered by a passive or a neuter in the Vulgate, Luther, and Augusti, as if it were the Kal and not the Piel. The same construction is ascribed to the Peshito in the Latin version of the London Polyglott; but as the Syriac verb (ji j) has both an active and a neuter sense, and as the rest of the clause is in exact accordance with the Hebrew text, this translation does injustice to the faithfulness and skill of that celebrated version.—Some of the recent versions render!”p«ri so that it is (Ewald, Umbreit), or so that he is (Hendewerk). Cocceius makes bt>2 the nominative before r^n, Junius the nominative after it. The most natural construction is to read with Hendewerk, he shall be (i. e. the king of Assyria), or with the English Bible, they shall be (i. e. the Assyrians collectively), or with Hitzig indefinitely, it shall be, i. e. the end, issue, consequence, shall be, or the final state of things shall be.—The remaining words of the verse have been very variously explained. Junius takes 3 as a particle of time, which sense it often has before the infinitive r as (i. e. when) he decays. All other writers seem to give it its usual comparative mean ing. Aben Ezra makes biO’Q a noun analogous in form to ^p1?, in v. 16. All other writers seem to make it the infinitive of ep^a to melt, dissolve, or waste away, literally or figuratively, with fear, grief, or disease.—Jarchi explains bbb as a cognate form to bb, and as being the name of a worm or insect which corrodes wood—he shall be like the wasting of a wood-worm —i. e. pulverized. The ancient versions make bb’3 the participle of boa (i. q. b«) to flee, and Junius reads the whole clause thus—and it shall be (i. e. this shall come to pass) when the fugitive shall melt away (or be de stroyed)—i. e. when Sennacherib, fleeing from Judah, shall be murdered at home. Cocceius explains bbb to mean that which is lofty or eminent, and takes it as the subject of fi^ri—that which is lofty shall be like corruption or decay. Kimchi derives the meaning of bbb from b5, an ensign or standard —like the fainting of an ensign, or as when a standard-bearer falls (the soldiers fly). This is followed by Calvin, by the French, Dutch and English versions, by Vatablus, Piscator, Gataker, and Clericus (who explains bbtt of the standard-bearer’s heart failing him). To this it has been objected, that b3 never means a military standard, but a signal or a signal-pole,. and that no such effect as that supposed would necessarily follow from the flight or the fall of an ensign. The first of these objections applies also to the very different interpretation of Tremellius—and he shall be a standardbearer (to the Assyrians) at the time of (their) decline. The most recent writers are agreed in adopting the derivation of ODD proposed by Hezel and Schelling, who compare it with the Syriac uaj to be sick (whence the adjective JM.M-I). and explain the clause to mean it (or he) is (orshall be) like the fainting (or wasting away) of a sick man. None of the ancient versions give a literal translation of this clause. The Septuagint renders both 009 and oob by o qpei’ycov, and adds ano qiloybs xcHO/ueVi/?, upon which Lowth does not hesitate to found a change of text. The Chaldee para phrase is, and he shall be broken and a fugitive—the Syriac, he shall be as if he had not been—the Latin, erit terrore profugus. To these may be added Luther’s—he shall waste away and disappear-—and Augusti’s— there shall remain a wasted body. This disposition to paraphrase the clause instead of translating it, together with the various ways in which it is ex plained, may serve to show how difficult and doubtful it has seemed to all interpreters, ancient and modern. The paronomasia in the original is not very happily copied by Gesenius—wie einer hinschmachtet in Ohnmacht.
19. And the rest (or remnant) of the trees of his forest shall be few, and a child shall write them, i. e. make a list or catalogue, and by implication number them.—The singular form of ps is retained in translation by the Vulgate and Calvin (reliquiae ligni), and the sense of wood, though in the plural, by Junius (reliqua ligna). His forest is omitted by Hendewerk, changed to this forest by J. D. Michaelis, to the forest by Gesenius, and to their forest by Clericus. The Septuagint substitutes an avrav, and the Targum an explanatory paraphrase, the rest of his men of war.—In the He brew idiom, number, when absolutely used, has an opposite meaning to its usual sense in English and in Latin. By a number, we generally mean a considerable number; Horace says, nos numerus sumus, meaning, we are many (numerous); but in Hebrew, men of number is a few men (Gen. 34: 30. Deut. 4: 27. 33: 6). The idea seems to be that small amounts may easily be reckoned, with some allusion, Rosenmiiller thinks, to the ancient usage of weighing large and counting only small sums. Thus Cicero speaks of treasures so vast ut jam appendantur non numerentur pecuniae, and Ovid says, of another kind of property, pauperis es-t numerare pecus. The same idiom exists in Arabic, the numbered days often mentioned in the Koran being explained by the commentators to mean few.—The plural Tft’1 may either agree with *ixu as a collective, or with a plural understood—as for the rest, they shall be few. So J. H. Michaelis and Rosenmiiller. In order to remove the ambiguity, the words IS&E r-m are paraphrastically rendered by the Vulgate (prae paucitate numerabuntur), Luther, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Ewald, Umbreit. The English Version and some others simply substitute for IBIDE its peculiar idiomatic sense of few.—According to Rosenmuller, there is an allusion in the last clause to a child just beginning to count, and as yet only able to reckon on its fingers, which he thinks will account for the rabbinical tradition that a definite number (ten) is here predicted, and that just that number of Sennacherib’s army did in fact escape. Gill quotes another Jewish legend which reduces the number to five and specifies the persons. The first of these traditions is explained by Jarchi as involving an allusion to the letter yodh (the alphabetic representative of 10), as the smallest and simplest of the Hebrew characters, so that a child who was barely able to form this one would be competent to write down the number of those who should escape the slaughter. According to Gataker and Knobel, the idea is, that there would be no need of an inspector or a muster-master, any child would be able to discharge the office.
20. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day (that is, after these events have taken place), that the remnant of Israel, and the escaped of the house of Jacob, shall no longer add (i. e. continue) to lean upon their smiter (him that smote them), but shall lean upon Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in truth. There is here an allusion to the circumstances which gave rise to this whole prophecy. Ahaz, renouncing his dependence upon God, had sought the aid of Assyria, which secured his deliverance from present danger, but subjected the kingdom to worse evils from the very power to which they had resorted. But even these oppressions were to have an end in the destruction of the hostile power; and when this should take place, Judah, now instructed by experience, would no longer trust in tyrants but sincerely in Jehovah. Cocceius, Brentius, and Schmidius, refer this promise to the times of Christ exclusively, because this is the usual application of the phrase that day; because reliance upon God in truth is a peculiar promise of the new dispensation; because Israel did continue to rely on foreign aid, even after the decline of the Assyrian power; and because vs. 22, 23, are referred by Paul (Rom. 9: 27, 28) to the times of the New Testament. But since this prophecy immediately follows and precedes predictions of the downfall of Assyria, and since that power seems distinctly mentioned in the phrase iftsa, it is not unreasonable to conclude, that in that day means after that event, and that the reference is not to a sudden and immediate effect, but to a gradual result of the divine dispensations, so that what is here predicted, though it began to be fulfilled from the time of that catastrophe, did not receive its final consummation before Christ’s appearance. On this supposition, we are better able to explain the remnant of Israel, as meaning not merely those left in Judah after the carrying away of the ten tribes—nor the Jews themselves who should outlive the Assyrian oppressions, and to whom the same phrase is applied 2 Kings 19: 4, 31. 21: 14—nor merely the Jews who should return from the Babylonish exile, and to whom it is applied Hagg. 1: 2. Zech. 8: 6—nor merely the spiritual Israel, the remnant according to the election of grace, Rom. 11: 5— but all these at once, or rather in succession, should be taught the lesson of exclusive reliance upon God, by his judgments on his enemies.—The verbal form tpDV shall add (expressing continued or repeated action) is suppressed not only in the English Version, but in many others, including the most recent. It is retained in the ancient versions and by Calvin and Cocceius, and accommodated to the idiom of other languages by Junius (pergat), August! (fortfahren), Hendewerk (aufhoren).—The verb stay used in the English Version to translate -,5053 is equivocal, like peep in v. 14, because now em ployed chiefly in another sense. The idea expressed by the Hebrew word is simply that of leaning for support.—Calvin renders the i at the beginning of the last clause for, and Hitzig no! Its true force may be best conveyed in English by the simple adversative but. For the usage of the phrase bx-HUi mnp, vide supra, ch. 1: 9. By the phrase in truth, Cocceius under stands that the elect should trust in the reality, as distinguished from the types and shadows of the old economy. The common and obvious interpretation is, that they should trust God in sincerity, as opposed to a mere hypocritical profession, and with constancy, as opposed to capricious vacillation.
21. A remnant shall return, a remnant of Jacob, to God Almighty. There is an obvious allusion in these words to the name of the Prophet’s son Shear-jashub, mentioned in ch. 7: f3. As the people were probably familiar with this name, its introduction here would be the more significant. The Targum expounds the remnant of Jacob to mean ‘those who have not sinned, or have turned from sin.’ It really means those who should survive God’s judgments threatened in this prophecy, not merely the Assyrian invasion or the Babylonish exile, but the whole series of remarkable events, by which the history of the chosen people would be marked, including the destruction and dispersion of the nation by the Romans. There is no need, as Henderson supposes, of supplying the words and only in the text or in translation. That idea, as Hitzig well observes, is suggested by the repetition. The return here spoken of is one that was to take place at various times £hd in various circumstances. Under the old dispensation, the prophecy was verified in the conversion of idolatrous Jews to the worship of Jehovah, or of wicked Jews to a godly life, by means of their afflictions—under the new, in the admission of believing Jews to the Christian church, and prospectively in the general conversion of Israel to God, which is yet to be expected. Grotius imagines that the return here mentioned is that of the Jews, whom Sennacherib’s invasion had assembled in Jerusalem, to their own homes; but this is directly contradicted by the words that follow, to the Mighty God, which in that case would mean nothing. These words are understood by Gesenius, Hitzig, and DeWette, here as in ch. 9: 5, to mean mighty hero. Hendewerk, Umbreit, and Knobel, with all the early writers, give the words their proper sense. They shall return to Him who has thus shown himself to be the Mighty God. Jarchi supposes a special allusion to the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army; Clericus, to the impotence of idols, from whose worship they would turn to that of the true God, the God truly and exclusively omnipotent. The present form given to the verb turn by the recent German writers, is less suited to so manifest a promise than the proper future.—The definite article (the remnant), which is used in the English Version and by Barnes, is less exact than the indefinite one employed by Lowth and Henderson.
22. The Prophet now explains his use of the word remnant, and shows that the threatening which it involves is not inconsistent with the ancient promises. For though thy people, oh Israel (or Jacob), shall be. like the sand of the sea (in multitude), only a remnant of them shall return. A consumption is decreed, overflowing (with) righteousness. The first clause is explained by Augusti, Hitzig, Hendewerk, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit, as expressive only of a possible contingency (were thy people, or even if thy people were)—by Luther, Gesenius, and Barnes, as referring to their actual condition (though thy people be now numerous)—but more correctly by Calvin, Cocceius, and Lowth, as relating to a certain event, but one still future (though thy people shall be or is to be). There seems, as Calvin says, to be allusion to the promises given to the Patriarchs (e. g. Gen. 13: 16. 22: 17), and repeated by the Prophets (e. g. Hos. 2: 1), the fulfilment of which might have seemed to be precluded by the threaten ing in v. 21—to prevent which false conclusion, Isaiah here repeats the threatening with the promise—’though thy people shall indeed be numerous, yet etc. This particle, supplied in the English Version, though unnecessary, does not “evidently obscure the sense” (Barnes), but makes it clearer by rendering more prominent the apparent opposition between the threatening and the promise.—Israelis taken in the Septuagint and English Version, and by Henderson, as a nominative in apposition with thy people, God himself being the object of address; but the better and more usual construction regards Israel as a vocative. The name may be understood as that of the nation; but there is more force in the language if we suppose (with Calvin) an apostrophe to Israel or Jacob as the commontancestor, thus keeping up a distinct allusion to the ancient promises. Thy people will then mean thy posterity—not the ten tribes exclusively, nor Judah exclusively, but the whole race without distinction.—Like the sand of the sea does not mean scattered and despised, as Augusti strangely imagines, but innumerable, as in every other case where the comparison occurs (e. g. Gen. 22: 17. Ps. 139: 18. Hos. 2: 1. cf. Gen. 13: 16). Henderson explains is to him, i. e. to God, as in Hos. 12:6; but it rather means in it, i. e. in thy people, as we express proportion by saying ’ one in ten.’ It is retained by Cocceius (in eo), Umbreit (darin), and Ewald (darunter); but in order to avoid the ambiguity arising from a difference of idiom, the in may be exchanged for of or from, as in the ancient versions and by most modern writers. Gesenius, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and DeWette, use the present form returns, which is not so natural in this connexion as the future given by Ewald, Umbreit, and all the older writers. The return predicted is not merely that from the Babylonish exile, but a return to God by true repentance and conversion, as the only means of salvation—reliquiae convertentur (Vulgate). That a remnant only should escape, implies of course a general destruction, which is positively foretold in the last clause. Grotius and Clericus explain “,1^3 to mean a reckoning, or a sum as determined by a reckoning, here applied to the remnant of Israel as a small number, easily computed. This, accord ing to Clericus, is also the meaning of the Vulgate version, consummatio. Forerius and Sanctius understand by it the remnant itself, as having been almost consumed—DeDieu, a decree or determination—J. D. Michaelis, the accomplishment or execution of a purpose—but the simple and true meaning is consumption or destruction, as in Deut. 28: 65.—Forerius strangely understands 71*1)1 to mean a harrow, or a threshing-machine, figuratively applied to the sufferings of the people. Some explain it as an adjective, meaning severe (Umbreit) or certain (Vatablus)—the Vulgate as a participle, meaning shortened. Aben Ezra gives the true explanation of the word, as a participle meaning decreed, determined (1 Kings 20: 40). Henderson supposes an allusion to the primary meaning of the verb (to cut, carve, or engrave), implying permanence and immutability. Junius and Clericus make this phrase dependent on C]Cj&5 as a transitive verbal form; but it is rather to be construed with the substantive verb understood—a consumption is decreed—or as a subject with P]ai5 as a predicate—the consumption decreed (is) overflowing, i. e. overflows—a metaphor frequently applied to invading armies (ch. 8: 8. 28: ]£, 18. Dan. 11: 20, 22)—so that there is no need of attaching to S]ia&5 the Chaldee sense of hastening, as proposed by Clericus. He also makes it agree with the name of God, as Grotius does with remnant; but it really agrees with consumption. Righteousness,’ according to DeDieu, here means goodness in general and mercy in particular. Calvin and Grotius too explain it to mean piety or virtue; but Vitringa and others take it more correctly in its strict sense of retributive and punitive justice. A preposition is supplied before it by the Septuagint (B> dwaio- Gvry) and Umbreit (mit Gerechtigkeit), making it merely an attendant circumstance. Gesenius, Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk, DeWette, make it the object of qaaS considered as an active verb — floating righteousness in, i. e. bringing it in like a flood. Ewald and others make the noun an adverbial accusative— -flowing or overflowing (with) righteousness. The sense is not that the remnant of Israel should be the means of flooding the world with righteousness (Calvin), nor that they should be full of it themselves (Grotius), but that the destruction of the great mass of the people would be an event involving an abundant exhibition of God’s justice. This clause is therefore not, as DeDieu alleges, a direct promise of deliverance to the elect, but a threatening of destruction to the reprobate.
23. This verse contains a further explanation of the For a consumption even (the one) determined, (is) the Lord, Jehovah of Hosts, making (or about to make) in the midst of ail the earth. — Augusti makes fibs a verb (abgemessen ist), Vitringa a participle (consummatum). Clericus takes it as a noun, but in the sense of sum or reckoning, Lowth in that of full decree. Castalio has slaughter, which is too specific; Gesenius wasting, which is not strong enough. Most writers follow the ancient versions in translating it consumption or destruction. Castalio and Umbreit make nxifis an adjective, meaning cruel or severe. The Targum seems to treat it as an adjective without a substantive, used as a noun, synonymous with M^3. Cocceius, Junius, Gesenius, Ewald and others, give it the sense of something decreed, a decree, a judgment. It may, however, be more strictly understood as a passive participle agreeing with ri^3 — a consumption, even a decreed (consumption). — Vs is omitted by the Targum, Lowth and Barnes, and rendered all this by Junius and Piscator, so as to give Y*y* the restricted sense of land, which is the common explanation, although Ewald has earth, like the Septuagint (otxovft&tj). This verse and the one before it are quoted by Paul (Rom. 9: 27, 28), to show that the Jews, as such, were not the heirs of the promise, which was intended for the remnant according to the election of grace. The words are quoted from the Septuagint with a slight variation. The sense of the Greek is correctly given in the English version.
24. The logical connexion of this verse is not with that immediately preceding, but with v. 19. Having there declared the fate impending over the Assyrian, the Prophet, as it were, turned aside to describe the effect of their destruction on the remnant of Israel, and now, having done so, he resumes the thread of his discourse, as if there had been no interruption. Therefore (since this is soon to be the fate of the Assyrians) be not afraid, oh my people inhabiting Zion, of Asshur (or the Assyrian). He shall smile thee- (it is true) with the rod, and shall lift up his staff upon (or over) thee in the way of Egypt. There is consequently no need of departing from the ordinary meaning of -,ab, and rendering it but, as Gesenius, Hitzig, Hender son and Umbreit do.—Instead of saith, Clericus and J. H. Michaelis read hath said in the past tense, which seems to make the verse the record of a former revelation.—According to Aben Ezra and Kimchi, Zion is here put simply for Jerusalem, and the address is to the population of that city, whether permanent or temporary, during Sennacherib’s invasion. But as Zion was the seat of the true religion, and the people of God are often said to inhabit Zion, not in a local but a spiritual sense, most interpreters understand the object of address to be Israel in general, while some restrict it to the pious and believing Jews, the remnant of Israel, who were now to be consoled and reassured amidst the judgments which were coming on the nation—IVSK is properly the name of the whole people, and denotes the Assyrians in the strict sense, and not, as Cocceius suggests, the Syro-Grecian kings who succeeded Alexander, or the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, though the terms of the consolation are so chosen as to be appropriate to other emergencies than that by which they were immediately occasioned.—Gesenius, Hitzig, DeWette, Hendewerk and Umbreit make nss? a description of the past (he smote thee), which is wholly arbitrary, if not ungrammatical. Ewald and Knobel translate it as a present, and supply a relative (who smites thee). Henderson has he may smite thee, which appears to render it too vague and dubious. By far the simplest and most natural construction is that which gives the future form its strict sense (he shall smite thee), and explains the clause as a concession of the fact, that Israel was indeed to suffer at the hand of Assyria—q. d. true, he shall smite thee with the rod etc. Aben Ezra supposes this to mean, that Assyria should smite them only in design, i. e. try to smite them—others, that he should do no more than smite them, he should smite but not kill, as a master treats his slave, or a rider his beast. It seems more natural, however, to explain it in a general way, as simply conceding that they should be smitten, the necessaryqualification or restriction being afterwards expressed.—Here, as in ch. 9: 3, Vitringa understands by naa a yoke, and by the whole phrase, he shall lift up (and impose) his yoke upon thee. This does not materially change the sense, but makes a distinction between the parallel expressions which, to say the least, is needless and gratuitous. The best interpretation is the common one, which takes rod and staff as equivalent figures for oppression. —The last words, in the way of Egypt, are ambiguous, and admit of two distinct interpretations. Some early writers, quoted by Calvin, make the phrase to mean, on the way to (or from) Egypt, in allusion to the fact, that Sennacherib attacked Judea in the course of an expedition against Egypt. This view of the passage is adopted by Jerome, Clericus, J. D. Michaelis and Augusti, and has much to recommend it, as it seems to adhere to the literal import of the terms, and introduces a striking coincidence of prophecy with history. The principal objection is derived from the analogy of v. 26. The weight of exegetical authority preponderates in favour of a figurative exposition, making in the way synonymous with in the manner, after the example as in Amos 4: 10. The sense will then be this: l *Assyria shall oppress thee as Egypt did before.’ — An entirely different construction of this whole clause is that given by Junius and Tremellius, who make God him self the subject of the verbs ^33? and ^\ *He shall smite thee with the rod (i. e. with the Assyrian, so called in v. 5), but his staff he will lift up for thee (i. e. for thy deliverance) as he did in Egypt (when the Red Sea was divided by the rod of Moses). This construction, though ingenious, is to be rejected, on the ground that it supposes an antithesis and changes and. to but without necessity, refers the rod and staff to different subjects, although both are applied to the Assyrian in v. 5, and gives the preposition £? the sense of for or in behalf of, which it cannot naturally have in this connex ion, especially when following the verb
25. This verse assigns a reason for the exhortation not to fear in v. 24. For yet a very little, and wrath is at an end, and my anger (shall go forth or tend) to their destruction, i. e. the destruction of the enemy. Interpreters are not agreed upon the question whether the first clause has reference to that destruction also, or to the restoration of God’s people to his favour. Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, Clericus, J. H. Michaelis, Augusti, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig and Hendewerk, refer both zs t and ^QX to God’s displeasure with Assyria, and this seems to be the sense designed to be conveyed by the English Version. Si^3 will then mean to exhaust or sate itself. But Jarchi, Junius, Cocceius, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Gesenius, Maurer, Barnes, DeWette, Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel, refer nst to God’s anger against Israel, and ^QK to his wrath against Assyria. ’ For yet a very little, and the indignation, which has caused these sufferings to my people, shall be ended, and my wrath shall turn to the destruction of their enemies.’ The only objection to this exposition is that it supposes an ellipsis of some verb in the last clause, and in that respect is not so simple as the other, which construes both the nouns with n^3. In favour of it may be urged, not only the authorities already cited, but the fact that it makes the connexion with the foregoing verse much more natural and easy — that it gives!n)j3 its usual sense of being terminated, coming to an end — and ost its appropriated sense of God’s displeasure with his own people. (Vide supra, v. 5. also ch. 30: 27. 28: 20. Dan. 8: 19). The preterite form of f&3 is beautifully expressive of the change as already past in the view of the Prophet. This effect ISAJAH, CHAP. X. 209 is greatly weakened by a substitution of the future (shall cease) for the past (has ceased already). For nrvbnn (from r&s) some MSS. read cn^an from ribs, and Luzzatto cm *}>*r* (my wrath against the world shall cease).
26. The suddenness and completeness of the ruin threatened are ex pressed by a comparison with two remarkable events in sacred history, the slaughter of the Midianites by Gideon, and the overthrow of Pharaoh in the Red Sea. A.nd Jehovah of Hosts shall raise up against him (the Assyrian) a scourge (or instrument of vengeance) like the smiting of Midian at the rock Oreb, and his rod (Jehovah’s) shall again be over the sea, and he shall lift it up (again) as he did in Egypt (literally, in the way of Egypt, as in v. 24).—The rock Oreb is particularly mentioned because one of the Midianitish princes, who had escaped from the field of battle, was there slain by Gideon; and so Sennacherib, although he should survive the slaughter of his host, was to be slain at home (ch. 37: 38).—In the last clause there is a beautiful allusion to v. 24. As the Assyrians lifted up the rod over Israel in the manner of Egypt, so God would lift up the rod over them in the manner of Egypt. As they were like the Egyptians in their sin, so should they now be like them in their punishment.—According to the Rabbins M’iaS is something more than ant?, as flagellum is distinguished from scutica by Horace. They had lifted a rod over Israel, but God would raise up a scourge against them.—The construction of the last clause in the English Bible—and (as) his rod was upon the sea, (so) shall he lift it up etc.— puts an arbitrary meaning on the particles. According to the first construction given, his rod (shall be again) upon the sea is a poetical expression for ‘his power shall again be miraculously displayed.’—Cocceius refers the suffix in waa to ^rtuJx, by which he understands the Syro-Grecian kings-s, and especially Antiochus Epiphanes, who invaded Cyprus and made an at tempt upon Egypt, but was driven back by the Romans. Hence he reads —and his (the Assyrian’s) rod shall be over the sea, and he shall lift it up (or one shall take it away from him) in the way to Egypt.
27. And it shall be (happen or come to pass) in that day (when this prediction is fulfilled) that his burden (the burden imposed by him, the heavy load of Assyrian oppression, perhaps with special reference to the tribute imposed upon Hezekiah) shall depart (be removed) from thy shoulder, and his yoke (a poetical equivalent to burden) from thy neck (oh Israel!) and the yoke (itself) shall be destroyed (or broken off) because of (literally, from the face of) oil (or fatness or anointing). The only difficulty lies in the concluding words, which have been variously understood. Some have attempted to remove the difficulty by a change of text. Thus Lowth reads fc^EStt) on the authority of the Septuagint (anb rav 14 Seeker IB^ ^zv on account of my name, or IEE *a-E % tfAe sows o/^7 — J. D. Michaelis (for ban) ^n the band of the yoke. Of those who retain the common text, some take h,EttS in its usual sense of oil, and suppose an allusion to the softening of the yoke with oil, or to its preservation by it. ’ Whereas yokes are commonly preserved by oil, this on the contrary shall be destroyed by it’ (Kocher). But in this interpretation, the explanatory fact is arbitrarily assumed. Others take -psoj in the sense of fat or fatness? and suppose an allusion to the rejection of the yoke by a fat bullock, Deut. 32: 15. Hos. 4: 16. 10: 11 (Gesenius), or to the bursting of the yoke by the increasing fatness of the bullock’s neck (Hitzig, Hendewerk),or to the wear ing away of the yoke by the neck, instead of the neck by the yoke (Kimchi). Of those who give this sense to “jEtti, some give to ^as its strict sense, face. Thus Doederlein — the yoke shall be destroyed from off the fat-faced, i. e. prosperous. Others read the yoke shall be destroyed by the fatness (i. e. the excessive wealth and prosperity of the Assyrian empire) — or before the increasing prosperity of Judah. Knobel supposes the face of the bullock to be meant (compare Job 41: 6), and with J. D. Michaelis reading ^n, understands the verse as meaning that the yoke shall first slip from the shoulder of the animal, then from its neck, and lastly from its fat face or head. Jerome and Vitringa understand by “jEtti the unction of the Holy Ghost, as a Spirit of grace and supplications, with allusion to the influence of Hezekiah’s prayers. Grotius and Dathe follow Jarchi and Kimchi in explaining “(aa3 as an abstract used for a concrete, anointing for anointed one, which they apply to Hezekiah. The Targum gives the same construction, but applies the word to the Messiah, in which it is followed by Calvin and Henderson. The general meaning of the verse is plain, as a prediction of deliverance from Assyrian bondage.
28. From the time of the Assyrian’s overthrow the Prophet now re verts to that of his invasion, which he describes in the most vivid manner by rapidly enumerating the main points of his march from the frontier of Ju dah to the gates of Jerusalem. From the geographical minuteness and precision of this passage, Eichhorn and Hitzig have inferred that it was written after the event, because Isaiah could not know what route Sennacherib would take. Ewald supposes the description to be drawn from what had actually taken place in former cases, i. e. from the route of the Assyrians on previous occasions, but applied to an event still future. Gesenius and Hendewerk regard the description as ideal and intended to express, in a poetical manner, the quarter from which the invasion was to come and its general direction, by rapidly enumerating certain places as the points through which it was lo pass. The same position is maintained in Robinson’s Researches (vol. 2. p. 149), on the ground that the road here traced could never have been commonly used, because impracticable from the nature of the ground. If passable at all, however, it may well have been adopted in a case of bold invasion, where surprise was a main object. The difficulties of the route in question must be slight compared with those by which Hannibal and Napoleon crossed the Alps. It is therefore not impossible nor even improbable, that Isaiah intended to delineate the actual course taken by Sennacherib. At the same time this is not a necessary supposition, since we may conceive the Prophet standing in vision on the walls of Jerusalem, and look ing towards the quarter from which the invasion was to come, enumerating certain intervening points, without intending to predict that he would really pass through them. In this case, the more difficult the route described, the better suited would it be to express the idea that the enemy would come in spite of all opposing obstacles. J. D. Michaelis supposes the invasion here described to be that of Nebuchadnezzar—partly because that supposition, as he thinks,, makes the connexion between this and the next chapter clearer and more natural—partly because the Babylonian army did pursue this course, whereas Sennacherib came against Jerusalem from the south (Isai. 36: 2). That there is no weight in the former argument, will be shown in the proper place. That there is little in the other, will appear from the consideration, that the history contains no account of Sennacherib’s own march upon the city, but only of Rabshakeh’s embassy from Lachish, and it is expressly said that when that officer rejoined his master, he had already advanced further to the north. It is easy to imagine, therefore, that he may have chosen a circuitous and difficult approach, in order to take the city by surprise. Besides the inconclusiveness of these objections to the old interpretation, that of J. D. Michaelis is exposed to very serious objections; for example, that the foregoing context has relation to Assyria, without any intimation of a change of subject; that there is no hint of the city’s being taken, much less destroyed; that the description in the text is not one of a deliberate, protracted occupation, but of a rapid and transient incursion; that the march is immediately followed by a great reverse and sudden overthrow, whereas Nebuchadnezzar was entirely successful. On these and other grounds, the passage is applied by most interpreters to the Assyrians, al though some suppose Sennacherib’s personal approach to be described, and others that of his representative (Junius, Robinson etc.).—The places here enumerated seem to have belonged chiefly or wholly to the tribes of Benjamin and Judah. Some of them are still in existence, and the site of several has been recently determined by the personal observations and inquiries of Robinson and Smith. The catalogue begins at the frontier of the kingdom of Judah, and, as J. D. Michaelis suggests, at the first place conquered by the Israelites on taking possession of the land. The language is precisely that of an eye-witness describing at the moment what he actually sees. He is come to Aiath—he is passed to Migron—to Michmash he intrusts his baggage. Although the form Aiath nowhere else occurs, it is commonly supposed to be the same with Ai, the ancient royal city of the Canaanites, destroyed by Joshua (Josh. 8:1), and afterwards rebuilt (Ezra 2: 28. Neh. 8: 32). It is unnecessary, therefore, to suppose that the name here denotes the spot or the region in which Ai once stood, as explained by Junius (Hajanam regionem versus). The ancient Ai was situated on a height to the north-east of Jerusalem. Eusebius describes it as in ruins when he wrote, and Jerome says its remains were scarcely visible in his day. Accord ing to Robinson, its site is probably still marked by certain ruins, south of Deir Diwan, an hour from Bethel.—The present form, he passes, represents the thing as actually taking place; the preterite, he has passed, implies that he has scarcely reached a place before he leaves it, and is therefore more expressive of his rapid movements. Either is better than the future form adopted by the ancient versions. According to J. D. Michaelis, he passes by Migron without entering—according to others, he passes to Migron from Ai—according to Gesenius and the other recent versions, he passes through Migron, as the second landmark on the route of the invaders. The precise situation of this place is now unknown, as it is mentioned only here and in 1 Sam. 14:2, from which text it would seem to have been near to Gibeah. —Michmash is still in existence under the almost unchanged name of Mukhmas, to the north-east of Jeba, on the slope of a steep valley. The place is now desolate, but exhibits signs of former strength, foundations of hewn stone and prostrate columns. Some give to ^rpB? here its secondary sense of depositing his baggage, stores, etc. (called in old English, carriages), i. e. merely while he halted (Barnes), or leaving them behind to expedite his march (Grotius), or because not needed for the taking of Jerusalem (Jerome), or on account of the difficult passage mentioned in the next verse (Hendewerk).
29. They have passed the pass, a narrow passage between Michmash and Geba (I Sam. 13: 3, 5 etc.), a spot no doubt easily maintained against an enemy. Their passing it implies that they met with no resistance, or had overcome it, and that there was now little or nothing to impede their march. In Gcba they have taken up their lodging (literally, lodged a lodging). Geba appears from 1 Kings 15: 22 to have been on or near the line between Benjamin and Judah. There is a small village now called Jeba, half in ruins, with large hewn stones and the remains of a square tower, on the opposite side of the valley from the ancient Michmash. This place Robinson and Smith supposed at first to be Geba, but afterwards concluded that it must be Gibeah of Saul, and that the site of Geba must be further down, where they heard of ruins, but had not time to explore (vol. 2. pp. 114, 115). Knobel alleges that Geba and Gibeab of Saul were one and the same place, and adopts the Vulgate version of the phrase “pba lib (Gaba sedes nostra), which is also retained by Barnes (Geba is a lodging-place for us). This supposes the Assyrians to be suddenly introduced as speaking, to avoid which abrupt change of construction, Lowth, Doederlein, and Dathe, adopt the reading of the Targum, tab for tob. Most interpreters, however, follow Aben Ezra in explaining “b as a verb from 1&. The construction of the verb with its derivative noun is analogous to that of dreaming a dream, and other like expressions. The form of the original is imitated by Junius and Tremellius (in diversorium diverterunt). This construction of i:b as a verb is favoured by the parallelism, rnssa T’35 being a similar combination of a noun with its verbal root.—Thus far he has described what the Assyrians themselves do—they cross the line at Ajath— pass through Migron—leave their baggage at Michmash—lodge at Geba. Now he describes what the places themselves do—Ramah trembles—Gibeah of Saul flees. Ramah was a city of Benjamin, near Gibeah, but further from Jerusalem. It is still in existence as Er-ram, which is the masculine form «f the one here used, with the Arabic article prefixed. It is about half a mile nearly due west of Jeba, but hidden from it by intervening heights (Robinson, vol. 2. pp. 108—114). It is two hours north of Jerusalem, on the eastern side of the road to Nablus. Eusebius and Jerome describe it as a small village, six Roman miles from Jerusalem. The identity of this place with the ancient Ramah was long lost sight of, but has been clearly ascertained by Smith and Robinson. Ramah trembles (or is afraid) at the enemy’s approach, a strong and beautiful personification, or the place may be simply put for its inhabitants, as in the Targum. The trembling and flight of these towns is naturally represented as occurring while the enemy was resting at Geba. It may imply either that Ramah was not in the direct line of the march, but within sight and hearing of it, or on the contrary, that it was the next place to be reached, and trembling in apprehension of it. A still stronger metaphor is used as to the next place. Gibeah of Saul—so called because it was his birth-place and residence, and to distinguish it from others of the same name—is fled. There is here a rapid but marked climax. While Ramah trembles, Gibeah flees.
30. To terror and flight he now adds an audible expression of dis tress, representing one place as crying, another as listening, and according to some writers, a third as responding. At the same time he exchanges the language of description for that of direct personal address. Cry aloud daughter Gallim (or daughter of Gallim), hearken Laishah, ah poor Anathoth! The site of Gallim is no longer known, but it was no doubt somewhere in the neighbourhood of Gibeah. The personification is made more distinct by the use of the word daughter, whether employed simply for that purpose and ap plied to the town itself, as explained by J. D. Michaelis (Stadt Gallim) and Rosenmuller (oppidurn Gallim), with or without allusion to its beauty (Barnes) —or, as in many other cases, to the population, as an individual. The Targum and Augustiread the name Bath-gallim. Grotius and others render nwb “n^pfi cause it (thy voice) to be heard to Laish (with n directive), i. e. to the northern extremity of the country, where stood the town of Dan, anciently called Laish, and often coupled with Beersheba to express the whole extent of Canaan—or to Laish, a town near the others here mentioned, but no longer in existence. Others suppose the name to be Laishah, and govern it di rectly by the verb—cause Laishah to hear—but ^prt always means to listen. Luther, Lowth, Augusti, Henderson and Umbreit, suppose an apostrophe to Laishah itself—hearken oh Laishah! Cocceius, Vitringa, Maurer, and DeWette: hearken to (or towards) Laish, which is then supposed to be crying itself, and the call to listen is addressed to Gallim or the next place mentioned, which implies a close proximity. Anathoth, now Anata,) a sacerdotal city of Benjamin, built upon a broad ridge, an hour and a quarter from Jerusalem. Ecclesiastical tradition has assigned another site to Anathoth, between Jerusalem and Ramleh; but the true site has been clearly ascertained and fixed by Robinson and Smith (vol. 2. p. 109). There are still remains of an ancient wall of hewn stone, old foundations, and fragments of columns. It commands an extensive view, and from it the travel lers just mentioned beheld several of the places here enumerated. Lowth and Ewald take r^ys as a verb with a suffix, Hendewerk or a verb with a paragogic letter, meaning answer or answer her, oh Anathoth! Lowth sup poses an allusion to the primary meaning of the name, viz. answers, i. e. echoes or reverberations from the hills by which the city was surrounded. Hitzig takes mas as a proper name with n^a left out or understood before it, of which ellipsis there are several examples, and denoting Bethany, now called Elaziriyah (or the town of Lazarus) and situated on the eastern de clivity of the Mount of Olives. (See Robinson’s Palestine, vol. 2. p. 101.) But the majority of writers, old and new, make mas, as in other places where it occurs, the feminine of ^3, poor, afflicted, miserable, and descriptive, not of its ordinary state, as a poor mean village, but of the Prophet’s sympathy in view of the danger with which Anathoth was threatened. The introduction of the epithet in this case only may perhaps be ascribed to a designed paronomasia between the cognate forms mas and niras. The position of the adjective, though certainly unusual, is not unparalleled, there being instances enough to justify its explanation as a case of emphatic in version. These two words are construed as an independent clause by Doederlein (misera est Anathoth), which Gesenius thinks admissible, although he prefers the vocative construction of the Vulgate (paupercula Anathoth!).
31. Madmenah wanders (or removes from her place), the inhabitants of Gebimflee (or cause to flee i. e. carry off their goods). These places are no longer in existence, nor are they mentioned elsewhere. The Madmen spoken of by Jeremiah (48: 2), was a town of Moab, and Madmannah (Josh. 15: 21) was too far south. In this verse, for the first time, the in habitants are expressly mentioned and distinguished from the place itself. But Hiller (in his Onomasticon) makes latij’j a part of the proper name (Joshebehaggebim), and Jerome, on the contrary, makes fiisji an appellative (inhabitants of the hills).—The Vulgate renders JiPSh by confortamini, deriving it apparently from tts, and a similar version is given in the Peshito. The English Version, gather themselves to flee, is substantially the same with that of Calvin and Junius. According to Vitringa, it means to flee with violence and haste. Gesenius, in his Commentary, gives it the simple sense of fleeing; but in the second edition of his German Version, and in his Thesaurus, he explains it as a causative, in which he is followed by Hitzig, Maurer, and Knobel.
32. This verse conducts him to the last stage of his progress, to a point so near the Holy City that he may defy it thence. Yet to-day in Nob (he is) to stand (and there) will he shake, his hand (a gesture of menace and defiance) against the mountain of the house (or daughter) of Zion (I. e. Mount Zion itself), the hill of Jerusalem.—Nob was a sacerdotal city of Benjamin near Anathoth (Neh. 11: 32), and according to the Talmud and Jerome, within sight of Jerusalem. Robinson and Smith explored the ridge of Olivet for traces of this town, but without success. The Nob here mentioned is no doubt the same that Saul destroyed, although there was another in the plain towards Lydda, which Jerome seems to identify with this.—The first clause has been variously explained, according to the sense put upon -ras as signifying rest or arrival, and upon ti”n as an indefinite expression for’a day, or a specific one for this day or to-day. Joseph Kimchi, J. D. Michaelis, and Rosenmiiller, understand the clause to mean that yet to-day (but no longer, it will be safe for the inhabitants) to stay in Nob. Maurer and Henderson explain it to mean yet a day (or one day longer, he is) to remain in Nob. Of these and other constructions which have been proposed, the best is that which makes the clause mean that to-day (before to-morrow) he shall stand (i. e. arrive) in Nob—or that which makes it mean yet this day (he is) to stand (i. e. rest) in Nob (before commencing his attack). This last, which is given by the latest writers, is supposed to be most in accordance with the usage of the Hebrew verb.—According to the common explanation of the phrase “p^s ra as meaning Jerusalem itself (vide supra, ch. 1: 8), the mountain of the daughter of Zion coincides exactly with the parallel phrase, hitt of Jerusalem. The kethib T”1* r^a can only mean the temple, taking Zion in the widest sense as meaning the whole eminence on which Jerusalem was built. This reading is sustained by none of the ancient versions but the Targum, and although niirn rra in is no un usual combination, the phrase VP:Z ma. ^n does not occur elsewhere.—In this verse the Targum introduces a description of Sennacherib’s army, and a soliloquy of Sennacherib himself, neither of which has the slightest foundation in the original.
33. To the triumphant march and proud defiance now succeeds abruptly the tremendous downfall of the enemy himself, in describing which the Prophet resumes the figure dropped at v. 19, and represents the catastrophe as the sudden and violent prostration of a forest. Behold, the. Lord, Jehovah of Hosts, (is) lopping (or about to lop) the branch (of this great tree) with terror (or tremendous violence), and the (trees) high of stature (shall be) felled, and the lofty ones brought low. According to Knobel, the excision of the ornamental crown or head-dress of the tree is mentioned first, because the destroying power is to be conceived as darting down from heaven like a thunderbolt, not creeping upwards from the earth, like the spreading fire in v. 17, and in the same verse of the foregoing chapter. Jerome applies these two last verses to the death of Christ, and the consequent downfall of the Jewish state; Calvin, Cocceius, and J. D. Michaelis, to the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar. But these interpretations, although recommended by a seeming coherence with the following chapter, are at variance with the foregoing context, where Sennacherib’s invasion is described, and with the scope of the whole passage, which is to console the Jews in view of that event.—Hii-i, when followed by an active participle, commonly indicates a proximate futurity, at least with respect to the perceptions of the writer.—According to Kimchi, the divine names introduced imply that Sennacherib had hitherto supposed himself to be without a master, but was now to learn his error.—Hendewerk supplies appears before r,soa; but it is simpler and therefore better to supply the present of the verb to be.—rnse (from ‘nxQ to adorn) means an ornamental branch, or the branches considered as the beauty of the tree.—nx*i$a properly means terror, and in this case sudden and terrific violence. It is more vigorously rendered by Henderson (a tremendous blow), and Lowth (a dreadful crash). The a denotes not so much the manner as the means, not only violently, but by violence. Lofty of stature is not to be applied to men directly, as descriptive either of their pride or their appearance, but to trees, as representing the Assyrians in general or their chief men in particular. For the same cause, a^naa’ should not be rendered haughty, an epithet which cannot be applied to trees, but high or lofty.
34. And he (Jehovah) shall cut down (or away) the thickets of the forest (the Assyrian army) with iron, (i. e. with an instrument of iron, as an axe), and this Lebanon (this wooded mountain, this enormous forest, still referring to the host of the Assyrians) with (or by) a mighty one. It it is clear that the iron of this verse and the fire, of v. 17 denote one and the ^same thing, both implying that the forest was to perish, not by slow decay, but by sudden violence, which shows the absurdity of giving a specific sense to all the particulars in such a picture. Thus the thickets are probably mentioned only to complete the picture of a forest totally destroyed, though Kimchi understands this as an emblem of Sennacherib’s counsellors, by whose devices he had been entangled, while Grotius, Vitringa, and others, make it signify the common soldiers, as distinguished from the chiefs, before described as trees, and Hitzig applies it to the whole mixed multitude of the Assyrians. The general figure of a forest is made more specific by referring to Lebanon, a mountain celebrated for its woods. Ezekiel represents Sennacherib himself as a cedar of Lebanon (Ezek. 31: 3). The name is not here put for the land of Israel, of which Mount Lebanon was the northern boundary, nor for Jerusalem or the temple, in allusion to the cedar-wood employed in their construction.—Calvin and others understand -p’nxa as an adverbial phrase, meaning mightily or violently; but most interpreters explain it to mean by a mighty one. This is applied by Gesenius and Maurer to God himself—by Cocceius, Schmidius, Alting and J. D. Michaels, to Nebuchadnezzar—by Grotius, to the son of Sennacherib who slew him—by several of the Rabbins to the destroying angel—by Rosenmiiller and Hitzig to the Messiah—by Vitringa and J. D. Michaelis to the Messiah and the angel considered as identical. To these interpretations may be added, as a mere suggestion, that T^nx is possibly an epithet descriptive of Vna in the preceding clause—and he shall cut down the thickets of the forest with iron (i. e. with the axe), and this Lebanon shall fall by a mighty one (i. e. by a mighty axe). This would be perfectly in keeping with the figurative cast of the whole sentence, while at the same time it would leave the application of the terms as open as it can be upon any other supposition.—C]j?3 is taken as a passive form by Luther, J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Hendewerk, DeWette, Ewald. Its agreement with the plural •oso may in that case either be resolved into a common license of Hebrew syntax, or explained by supposing the agreement to be really with “I??. It is best, however, to take C)j?5 as a Piel of less usual form (Nordheimer § 238) governing 133*3 and indefinitely construed (one shall cut), or agree ing with Jehovah understood.
