HERE begins a series of prophecies (chap. XIII—XXIII) against certain foreign powers, from the enmity of which Israel had been more or less a sufferer. The first in the series is a memorable prophecy of the fall of the Babylonian empire and the destruction of Babylon itself (chap. XIII, XIV) The Medes are expressly named as the instruments of its subjection, and the prophecy contains several other remarkable coincidences with history both sacred and profane. Hence it was justly regarded by the older writers, both Jews and Christians, as an extraordinary instance of prophetic fore sight. As such, even J. D. Michaelis defends it against the hypothesis (then a novel one) of an ex post facto prophecy invented for the purpose of inducing Cyrus to befriend the Jews. He argues conclusively against this supposition, on the ground that the literary merit of the passage is too exquisite for such an origin, and that the writer, in the case supposed, could not have represented the destruction of Babylon as total without defeating his own purpose. The last objection also lies against Eichhorn’s supposition of a prophecy written after the event but without any fraudulent design, the form of prediction being merely a poetical costume. Rosenmuller holds that it was written towards the close of the Babylonish exile, while the events which it describes were in progress, or so near at hand as to be readily foreseen. This view of the matter is also taken by Gesenius and the later German writers on Isaiah. The arguments in favour of it, as recently stated by Knobel, may be reduced to three—(1) a spirit unworthy of Isaiah, i. e. one of bitter hatred and desire of revenge—(2) a want of resemblance in the style and diction to the genuine writings of Isaiah, and a strong resemblance to some later compositions—(3) a constant allusion to historical events and a state of things which did not exist for ages after Isaiah. The answer to the first reason is that it is false. Such is not the natural impression which the prophecy would make on an unbiassed reader. This perversion has been unintentionally aided by a rhetorical mistake of Calvin and other Christian interpreters in representing the fourteenth chapter as taunting and sarcastic in its tone, which on the contrary is characterized by pathos. But even on this erroneous supposition, there is nothing to justify the charge of bitter vengefulness, brought for the first time by the latest German writers, with an obvious design to strengthen their weak arguments derived from other sources. The second argument is unsound in principle and precarious in application. On the ground that every writer always writes alike, only one composition of any author can be certainly proved genuine. The Satires of Horace must be spurious because he was a lyric poet—the Georgics of Virgil because he was an epic poet— the Plaideurs of Racine because he was a tragic poet. One half of Aris tophanes and Shakspeare might be thus made to prove the other half a forgery. This mode of criticism is peculiarly German and will never commend itself to the general taste and judgment of tire learned world. The same thing may be said of the attempt to ascertain the age of ancient writings by a comparison of words- and phrases. One critic singles out whatever, taken by itself, appears to favour his own foregone conclusion, and leaves the rest unnoticed. Another, with another end in view,-might prove the contrary by the self-same process. This is not only possible but actu ally done. Thus Gesenius and Hitzig prove that Isaiah could not have written the fifteenth and sixteenth chapters, by an enumeration of diversities in diction, phraseology, grammatical construction, style etc. Hendewerk just as clearly proves, by a specification of minute but remark able coincidences, that Isaiah must have been the author. Admitting that the second demonstration is worth no more than the first, they may at least serve to cancel one another, and to show the fallacy of all such reasoning. This argument proves nothing by itself because it proves, or may be made to prove, too much. The true strength of the doctrine now in question lies not in the moral or philological arguments which have been no ticed, but in the historical one, that these chapters contain statements and allusions which imply a knowledge of what happened long after Isaiah’s 16 death. Hitzig says expressly that a prophecy against Babylon before the time of Jeremiah is impossible. This of course is tantamount to saying that prophetic inspiration is impossible. And this is after all the only question of importance. If there cannot be prophetic foresight, then of course a reference to subsequent events fixes the date of the writing which contains it. If, on the other hand, there is such a thing as inspiration and prophetic foresight, there is nothing to weaken the presumption created by a uniform tradition, the immemorial position of this prophecy, and the express terms of a title not less ancient than the text, of which, according to oriental usage, it is really a part. The point at issue therefore between Christian and infidel interpreters has reference not to words and phrases merely but to the possibility and reality of inspiration. Assuming this, we can have no hesitation in regarding the prophecy before us as a genuine production of Isaiah.— Of those who take this ground, Cocceius seems to stand alone in questioning the literal application of the prophecy to Babylon in the proper sense. He refers it partly to ancient Israel, partly to Antichrist, a theory which condemns itself as equally arbitrary and inconsistent. Grotius as usual goes to the opposite extreme of supposing that this is a hyperbolical description of evils which were to be experienced by Babylon before it reached the zenith of its greatness under Nebuchadnezzar, a hypothesis as arbitrary as the other, and moreover chargeable with contradicting history. Some particular absurdities of both these schemes will be brought to view in the exposition. The great majority of Christian writers understand these chapters as a specific prophecy of the downfall of the Babylonian empire occasioned by the conquests of the Medes and Persians. To this event there are repeated unequivocal allusions. There are some points, however, in which the coincidence of prophecy and history, on this hypothesis, is not so clear. This is especially the case with respect to the total destruction and annihilation of the city itself, which was brought about by a gradual process through a course of ages. The true solution of this difficulty is that that the prediction is generic, not specific; that it is not a detailed account of one event exclusively, but a prophetic picture of the fall of Babylon con sidered as a whole, some of the traits being taken from the first and some from the last stage of the fatal process, while others are indefinite or common to all. The same idea may be otherwise expressed by saying, that the king of Babylon, whose fall is here predicted, is neither Nebuchadnezzar nor Belshazzar, but the kings of Babylon collectively, or rather an ideal king of Babylon, in whom the character and fate of the whole empire are concentrated. Some of the terms applied to him may therefore be liter ally true of one king, some of another, some individually of none, although descriptive of the whole. This hypothesis, while It removes all discrepancies, still retains the wonderful coincidences of the prophecy with history, and makes them more remarkable by scattering them through so vast a field. Even if the allusions to the conquest of Cyrus could be resolved into conjecture or contemporary knowledge, how shall we account for a description of the fate of the great city, not once for all, but down to the present mo ment? Even supposing that the writer of this prophecy lived at the time of Cyrus, how will the infidel interpreter account for his prediction of that total desolation, which was not consummated for ages afterwards, but which now exists to the full extent of the prophetic description in its strongest sense. On the one hand, we have only to believe that Isaiah was inspired of God. On the other, we must hold that a writer of the very highest genius either personated the Prophet or was confounded with him by the ancient Jews, and that this anonymous writer, whose very name is lost, without any inspiration, uttered a prediction which then seemed falsified by the event, but which has since been accidentally fulfilled!—It is universally admitted that the thirteenth chapter, and the greater part if not the whole of the fourteenth, constitute a single prophecy. The division of the chapters is, however, not a wrong one. Both parts relate to the destruction of Babylon, setting out from God’s decree and winding up with the threatening of total desolation. Ch. XIV is therefore not a mere continuation of ch. XIII, but a repetition of the same matter in another form. The difference of form is chiefly this, that while ch. XIII is more historical in its arrangement, ch. XIV is dramatic or at least poetical. Another point of difference is that in ch. XIII the downfall of Babylon is represented rather as an act of divine vengeance, in ch. XIV as a means of deliverance to Israel, the denunciations of divine wrath being there clothed in the form of a triumphant song to be sung by Israel when Babylon is fallen.—Cocceius, as we have already seen, applies this part of the prediction secondarily but strictly to the fall of Anti christ. Many other of the older writers make this the mystical or secondary sense of the whole prophecy, because they understand it to be so explained in the Apocalypse. The truth, however, seems to be, first, that the down fall of Babylon, as a great antitheocratic power, an opponent and persecutor of the ancient church, affords a type or emblem of the destiny of all opposing powers under the New Testament; and secondly, that in consequence of this analogy, the Apocalyptic prophecies apply the name Babylon to the Antichristian power. But these Apocalyptic prophecies are new ones, not interpretations of the one before us.
AFTER a title, the prophecy opens with a summons to the chosen instruments of God’s righteous judgments upon Babylon, who are described as mustered by the Lord himself, and then appearing, to the terror and amaze ment of the Babylonians, who are unable to resist their doom, vs. 1-9. The great catastrophe is then described in a series of beautiful figures, as an extinction of the heavenly bodies, and a general commotion in the frame of nature, explained by the prophet himself to mean a fearful visitation of Jehovah, making men more rare than gold, dispersing the strangers resident at Babylon, and subjecting the inhabitants to the worst inflictions at the hands of the Medes, who are expressly mentioned as the instruments of the divine vengeance, and described as indifferent to gain and relentless in their cruelty, vs. 1-18. From this beginning of the process of destruction, we are then hurried on to its final consummation, the completeness of which is expressed by a comparison with the overthrow of Sodom and Gomorrah, and by a prediction that the site of Babylon shall not be frequented even by the wandering Arab, or by shepherds and their flocks, but only by solitary animals whose presence is itself a sign of utter desolation, vs. 19-22.
1. The Burden of Babylon (or threatening prophecy respecting it), which Isaiah the son of Amoz saw (received by revelation). There are two interpretations of KtBa, both very ancient. The one makes it simply mean a declaration (from K:rs to utter), or more specifically a divine declaration, a prophecy, oracle, or vision. The Septuagint translates it by oQavtg or oQapa, and sometimes by Ifj^fia (from Kiss to receive). The Vulgate has visio. This interpretation is adopted by Cocceius, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Lowth, and all the recent German writers. Henderson has sentence. The other explanation gives the word the sense of a minatory prophecy. So Luther, Calvin, and in our own day Hengstenberg, who denies that the word is ever applied to any prediction but a minatory one, even Zech. 12: 1 being no exception. (See his exposition of Zech. 9: 1, in his Christologie, vol. 2. p. 102.) He also alleges that the word is never joined like Cito with the name of God or of any other person but the subject of the prophecy. For these reasons, and because Ktea in other connexions always means a burden, it is best to retain the common explanation, which is also given by Barnes. This word occurs in the titles of all the distinct prophecies of this second part. The one before us is rejected by Hitzig and Ewald, as the addition of a copyist or compiler, but without the least external evidence or sufficient reason.
2. The attack of the Medes and Persians upon Babylon is now fore told, not in the proper form of a prediction, nor even in that of a description, which is often substituted for it, but in that of an order from Jehovah to his ministers to summon the invaders, first by an elevated signal, and then as they draw nearer by gestures and the voice. Upon a bare hill (i. e. one with a clear summit, not concealed by trees) set up a signal, raise the voice, (shout or cry aloud) to them (the Medes and Persians), and let them enter the gates of the (Babylonian) nobles.—Forerius takes fiBiBs as the proper name of a mountain, dividing Chaldea from Persia and Media. The Vulgate renders it caliginosum, which Jerome applies to the spiritual dark ness of the Babylonians, and Grotius to the fogs and mists arising from the marshy situation of the city. The Targum paraphrases the expression as denoting a city secure and confident of safety. Kimchi, Luther, Calvin, and most of the early Christian writers, with Augusti, Barnes, and Lee, in later times, give it the sense of lofty. But the latest lexicographers and commentators seem to be agreed that the true sense is that of bare or bald. The Septuagint version (OQOV$ nedtvov) is explained by Gesenius as descriptive of a mountain with a flat or level top, but the older writers understand it as denoting a mountain surrounded by a plain, a metaphorical description of Babylon. It is not, however, a description of the city, but an allusion to the usual method of erecting signals on a lofty and conspicuous spot. As the expression is indefinite—a mountain—there is no need of supposing with Vitringa a particular allusion to the Zagrian mountains between Media and Babylonia.—Jerome and Cocceius suppose the angels to be here addressed; Knobel and others, the captive Jews; but it is best to understand the words indefinitely as addressed to those whose proper work it was to do the thing commanded. Jehovah being here represented as a military leader, the order is of course to be conceived as given to his heralds or other officers. They are not commanded to display a banner as a sign of victory (Cyril), but to erect a signal for the purpose of collecting troops. There is no need of supposing with Vitringa and Henderson that bij? means the sound of the trumpet. The subjunctive construction of iKa’n given by most writers (that they may enter), is not only unnecessary but much less expressive than the obvious construction which supposes the command to be continued. The nobles are not those of Media and Persia, to whose doors Clericus supposes the soldiers to be summoned for the purpose of enlisting in this service, but those of Babylon. The specific sense of tyrants, which Gesenius and the later Germans put upon this word, is wholly unauthorized by the analogy of Job 21: 28, unless we assume that parallel terms must always be synonymous. Other constructions of the last clause have been given by the Septuagint (avol^ars ol aQjowig)—the Vulgate (ingrediantur portas duces) —Schmidius (ut veniant portae principum)—Koppe (voluntarii portas aperite)—Doderlein (ut veniant enses evaginati voluntariorum)—J. D. Michaelis (dass meine Freywillige sich vor meiner Pforte versammlen) etc. All these involve a change of text or a harshness of construction. Lowth omits tart, as of no use and rather weakening the sentence. On the contrary it strengthens it by an abrupt reference to the invaders without naming them, as being too well known already.
3. The enemies thus summoned are described as chosen, designated instruments of the divine vengeance, and as already exulting in the certainty of their success. I (myself) have given command (or a commission) to my consecrated (chosen and appointed instruments). Yes (literally, a/so), I have called (forth) my mighty ones (or heroes) for (the execution of) my wrath, my proud exulters.—The insertion of ^x is not an idiom of the later Hebrew, as explained by Gesenius (Lehrg. p. 801), but as Maurer has correctly stated, an emphatic designation of God as the sole efficient agent, I myself, or I even I. *wp£ has no reference to the moral character or pur pose of the instruments, but simply to God’s choice and preparation of them for their work. The Chaldee paraphrase makes the last of these ideas, that of preparation, too exclusively prominent. Henderson and Knobel suppose a special reference to the religious ceremonies practised before going out to war (1 Sam. 7: 9. 13: 9. 2 Chron. 13: 12. Comp. Gen. 14: 14). But as this would not be strictly applicable to the Medes and Persians, it seems more natural to suppose that ttJ^p is here used in its primary and proper sense of separating, setting apart, or consecrating to a special use or service. The w at the beginning of the second clause is arbitrarily omitted by Gesenius and DeWette, but retained by Ewald and Umbreit. To call out is here explained by Rosenmuller as denoting specially a call to military service. It may, however, have the general sense of summoning or calling upon by name. ITC is commonly regarded as simply equivalent to “VBips; but Knobel understands the former as a specific epithet of chiefs or officers. August!, Barnes, and most of the older writers, understand the last words of the verse as meaning those who exult in my greatness, or in my great plan (Barnes,) Kimchi and Jarchi; those by whom I glorify myself. But the other modern writers have adopted the construction of Cocceius and Vitringa, who refer the suffix to the first word or the whole phrase, a common Hebrew idiom (Gesen. § 119. 5)—my exulters of pride, i. e. my proud exulters. This may be understood as a description of the confidence with which they anticipated victory; but most interpreters suppose an allusion to the natural character of the Persians as described by Croesus in Herodotus pQKJTttf)—by Herodotus himself (yopi^ovTsg savrovs tlvai &r cp ra navra aQisrovq)—by JEschylus (^n^o^noi ayav)—and by Ammianus Marcellinus (abundantes inanibus verbis insanumque loquentes et ferum, magnidici et graves ac tetri, minaces juxta in adversis rebus ac prosperis, callidi, superbi). The same idea is expressed by the Septuagint version (XCLI’(JOVZ£S apa xal vf
4. The Prophet, in his own person, now describes the enemies of Babylon who had just been summoned, as actually on their way. He hears a confused noise, which he soon finds to be that of confederated nations forming the army of Jehovah against Babylon. The voice (or sound) of a multitude in the mountains! the likeness of much people! the sound of a tumult of kingdoms of nations gathered (or gathering themselves) I Jehovah of Hosts mustering (i. e. inspecting and numbering) a host of battle (i. e. a military host)! The absence of verbs adds greatly to the vividness of the description. The sentence really consists of a series of exclamations, describing the impressions made successively upon the senses of an eye and ear-witness. The expression is weakened by supplying is heard (Junius) or there is (Cocceius). Gesenius and Ewald insert hark! at the beginning of the sentence, which is better, though unnecessary. By the mountains some suppose Media to be meant, to which Henderson adds Armenia and the other hilly countries from which Cyrus drew his forces. This supposes the movement here described to be that of the levy or conscription. But it seems more natural to understand it, as most writers do, of the actual advance of the invaders. The mountains then will be those dividing Babylonia from Media or Persia. — The symbolical interpretation of mountains as denoting states and kingdoms (Musculus), is entirely out of place here. mm is commonly explained here as equivalent to as or like; but J. D. Michaelis and Rosenmiiller seem to take it in its proper sense of likeness or similar appearance, and refer to the indistinct view of a great multitude approaching from a distance. The reference to sound before and after wards, makes the reference of this clause to the sense of sight improbable. — The rendering of “pans ^ip tumultuous noise is not only a gratuitous departure from the form of the original, but a weakening of the description. The object presented is not a tumultuous noise merely, but the noise of an actual tumult. — Calvin, Gesenius, and others, separate kingdoms from nations, as distinct particulars. The construction kingdoms of nations, which is retained by Ewald, is the one required by the Masoretic accents, and affords a better sense. — The Niphal participle may be taken in a reflexive sense, in which case the description would refer to the original assembling of the troops. There is no necessity however for departing from the ordinary usage, according to which it describes the nations as already assembled. — It is commonly agreed that there is here a direct reference to the mixture of nations in the army of Cyrus. Besides the Persians and the Medes, Xenophon speaks of the Armenians, and Jeremiah adds the names of other nations (Jer. 50: 9. 51: 27). Most interpreters suppose the event here predicted to be subsequent in date to the overthrow of Croesus, while Knobel refers it to the first attack of Cyrus upon Babylonia, recorded in the third book of the Cyropedia. But these distinctions seem to rest upon a false view of the passage as a description of particular marches, battles etc., rather than a generic, picture of the whole series of events which ended in the downfall of Babylon. For a just view of the principles on which such prophecies should be explained, with particular reference to that before us, see Stuart on the Apocalypse, vol. 2, p. 143. The title Jehovah of Hosts, may here seem to be used unequivocally in the sense of God of Battles, on account of the obvious allusion to the word host following. But as this explanation of the title is not justified by scriptural usage (vide supra, ch. 1: 9), it is better to understand the words as meaning that the Lord of the Hosts of Heaven is now mustering a host on earth. Lowth, on the authority of a single manuscript, reads rranb^ybr the battle or for battle. But the last word appears to be added simply for the purpose of limiting and qualifying that before it. This was the more necessary as the same word had been just used in another sense. He who controls the hosts of heaven is now engaged in mustering a host of war, i. e. an army. The Septuagint and Vulgate construe these last words with the following verse—the Lord of Hosts has commanded an armed nation to come etc.—which is a forced and ungrammatical construction.— The substitution of the present for the participle in the English Version (mustereth) and most others, greatly impairs the force and uniformity of the expression by converting a lively exclamation into a dispassionate assertion. Hendewerk carelessly omits the last clause altogether.
5. Coming from a distant land (literally, a land of distance), from the (visible or apparent) end of the heavens—Jehovah and the instruments (or weapons) of his wrath—to lay waste (or destroy) the whole land (of Babylonia).—Junius and most of the later writers construe D^xi as a present (they come etc.). It is better to make it agree with x*a as a collective, and to continue the construction from the foregoing verse, as above.—The end of heaven is of course regarded by Gesenius as a proof of ignorance in the writer. Others more reasonably understand it as a strong but natural hyperbole. The best explanation is that given by J. D. Michaelis and Barnes, who suppose the Prophet to refer to the horizon or bounding line of vision. He is not deliberately stating from what region they set out, but from what point he sees them actually coming, viz. from the remotest point in sight. This view of the expression, not as a geographical description, but as a vivid representation of appearances, removes the necessity of explaining how Media or Persia could be called a distant land or the extremity of heaven. Schmidius evades this imaginary difficulty by applying the terms to the distant nations from which Cyrus drew his forces —Clericus by referring distant not to Babylonia but Judea, and supposing the Prophet to be governed in his use of language by the habitual associations of his Jewish readers. Cocceius, partly for this very reason, under stands the whole passage as a threatening against Judah.—Jehovah and the weapons of his wrath. According to the Michlol Jophi, and is here put for with, and some translators actually make the substitution, which is wholly unnecessary. The host which Jehovah was before said to be mustering is now represented as consisting of himself and the weapons of his wrath. This intimation of his presence, his co-operation, and even his incorporation, with the invading host, adds greatly to the force of the threatening. The Hebrew word a^a corresponds to our implements in its widest sense, as including instruments and vessels. It has here the active sense of weapons, while in Rom. 9: 22, Paul employs a corresponding Greek phrase in the passive sense of vessels. Weapons of wrath are the weapons which execute it, vessels of wrath the vessels which contain it.— The ambiguous phrase fish ba is explained by the Septuagint as meaning the whole world (nacav irtv uxovftbtp), and this interpretation is approved by Umbreit, on the ground that Babylon was a type or symbol of human opposition to divine authority. In its primary import it no doubt denotes the land of Babylonia or Chaldea. Cocceius alone understands the land of Israel or Judah to be meant, in accordance with his singular hypothesis already mentioned.
6. Howl (ye Babylonians, with distress and fear), for the day of Jehovah (his appointed time of judgment) is near. Like might (i. e. a mighty stroke or desolation) from the Almighty it shall come.—Calvin points out a lusus verborum in the combination of I’iro almighty, and ^ desolation or destruction, both derived from vroi. As if he had said, you shall know with what good reason God is called ^- This is described by Calvin as a concinna allusio ad etymologiam, by Barnes as a “ paronomasia or pun, a figure of speech quite common in the Scriptures.” Paronomasia and pun are not synonymous, and the application of the latter term in this case, if not irreverent, is inexact. Gesenius denies that it is even a paronomasia in the proper sense. He also take 5 as a caph veritatis—(like a destruction from the Almighty (as it is).’ But Hendewerk takes it in its proper sense—a destruction as complete and overwhelming as ifh were an act of reckless violence. Kimchi explains the clause to mean, as a destruction (not from man, but) from a mighty one who cannot be resisted or avoided. Vitringa labours to explain and justify the derivation of a divine name from a root of evil import like ilia to plunder or destroy. But this etymological difficulty is removed by the later lexicographers, who give the root the general sense of being strong or mighty, as in Arabic. The specific sense of tempest or destructive storm, which Gesenius puts upon i&S here and in Joel 1: 15, is perfectly gratuitous. Jehovah’s days are well defined by Cocceius: in genere dies Domini dicuntur divinitus constitutae opportunities quibus judicium suum exercet. (Vide supra, ch. 2: 12.) This day is said to be near, not absolutely with respect to the date of the prediction, but relatively, either with respect to the perceptions of the Prophet, or with respect to what had gone before. For ages Babylon might be secure; but after the premonitory signs just mentioned should be seen, there would be no delay. The words of the verse are supposed to be uttered in the midst of die tumult and alarm of the invasion.
7. Therefore (because of this sudden and irresistible attack) all hands shall sink (fall down, be slackened or relaxed), and every heart of man shall melt. Clericus supposes an allusion to the etymology of iBiaa as denoting frailty or infirmity (omne aegrorum mortalium cor); but most interpreters explain the phrase as simply meaning every mortal heart or the heart of every mortal. Cocceius understands by the sinking of the hands the loss of active power, and by the melting of the heart, the fear of coming evil. Junius supposes an antithesis between the hands or body and the heart or mind. But both the clauses, in their strict sense, are descriptive of bodily effects, and both indicative of mental states. Each of the figures is repeatedly used elsewhere. (See Jos. 7: 5. Ps. 22: 13. Jer. 50: 43. Job 4: 3.) Knobel quotes from Ovid the analogous expression, cecidere illis animique manusque.
8. And they (the Babylonians) shall be confounded—pangs and throes shall seize (them)—like the travailing (woman) they shall writhe— each at his neighbour, they shall wonder—faces of flames (shall be) their faces.—The Vulgate, Peshito, and Lowth, connect the first word with the verse preceding, which is, to say the least, unnecessary.—The translation fear or tremble, is too weak for *6m5, which includes the ideas of violent agitation and extreme perplexity. The Septuagint strangely gives to d^ix here the sense of ambassadors or messengers (vide infra, ch. 18: 2. 57: 9), which is precluded by the whole connexion, and especially by the combination with d^an.—Solomon ben Melech explains ] in “prnxi as an anomalous suffix used instead of d. Lowth as usual corrects the text by reading dimxo, on the alleged authority of the Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito, which supply the suffix. Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald and Knobel, adopt a construction mentioned by Kimchi, which makes pangs and throes the object not the subject of the verb—they shall take pangs and throes—as we speak of a house taking fire or a person taking a disease, and as Livy says capere metum. This form of expression occurs, not only in Arabic, but in Job 18: 20. 21: 6. The construction is also recommended by its rendering the suffix unnecessary, and by its giving to “ptrwo the same subject with the verbs before and after it. The objection to it, strongly urged by Hendewerk, is that the construction, even in Job, is Arabic not Hebrew, the idiom of the latter being clear from other cases where the same verb and nouns are combined (Isai. 21: 3. Jer. 13: 21), or the same nouns with other verbs (1 Sam. 4: 19. Isai. 66: 7. Jer. 22: 23. Dan. 10:16. Hos. 13:13), or other nouns and verbs of kindred meaning (Ex. 15: 14. Isai. 35: 10. Deut. 28: 2), but in all without exception the noun is the subject not the object of the verb. The construction thus proved to be the common one, may at least be safely retained here, the rather as the collocation of the words is evidently in its favour.—The sense of trembling given to “p^rr by several of the recent writers is too weak. The best translation seems to be that of Henderson—they shall writhe—i. e. with pain. The expression wonder at each other occurs once in historical prose (Gen. 43 f 33). It seems here to denote not simply consternation and dismay, but stupefaction at each other’s aspect and condition—q. d. each man at his friend shall stand aghast.—The last clause is referred by J. H. Michaelis to the Medes and Persians, and explained as a description of their violence and fierceness, in which sense the same figures are employed in Isaiah 66: 15 and Rev. 9: 17. It is commonly and much more naturally understood as a continued description of the terror and distress of the Chaldeans. Aben Ezra mentions an interpretation of fshb as the proper name of an African race descended from Mizraim the son of Ham (Gen. 10: 13. 1 Chron. 1: 11), and probably the same with the Lubim (2 Chron. 16: 8) or Libyans. 1 *Their faces shall be (like) the faces of Africans’ i. e. black with horror and despair. This explanation is approved by Gataker; but all other writers seem to take trnfib as the plural of nn^ a flame. The point of comparison, according to Kimchi, is *redness, here referred to as a natural symptom of confusion and shame. But as this seems inappropriate in the case before us, Hitzig and Knobel understand the aspect indicated to be one of paleness, as produced by fear. Calvin, Gesenius, and many others, under stand the glow or flush produced by anguish and despair to be intended. For the classical usage of fire and flame as denoting a red colour, see Gesenius’s Thesaurus, torn. 2, p. 743. In the last edition of his Lexicon by Robinson, the phrase before us is explained to mean “ ruddy and burning with eagerness,” an expression applicable only to the conquerors. Instead of eagerness, the Thesaurus has internum animi aestum.—Cocceius refers this, as well as the preceding verses, to the Assyrian and Babylonian invasions of the Holy Land. He also makes the verbs descriptive presents, in which he is followed by J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans. There is, however, no need of departing from the strict sense of the future.
9. All this must happen and at a set time—for behold the day of Jehovah cometh—terrible—and wrath and heat of anger—to place (or make) the land a waste—and its sinners he (or it, the day) will destroy from it (or out of it).—According to Cocceius, the mention of Jehovah throughout this passage, sometimes in the first person, sometimes in the third, has reference to the plurality of persons in the Godhead.—He also renders “ntax as an abstract noun (immanitas), in which he is followed by Vitringa, while Ewald gives it an adverbial sense (grausamer Art), but most interpreters regard it as an adjective synonymous with “ITSX. The application of this term to God, or to his judgments, seems to have perplexed interpreters. Crudelem diem vocat (says Jerome) non merito sui sed populi. Non est enim crudelis qui crudeles jugulat, sed quod crudelis patientibus esse videatur. Nam et Intro suspensus patibulo crudeltm judicem putat. “ The word (says Barnes) stands opposed here to mercy, and means that God would not spare them.” It is dubious, however, whether the word in any case exactly corresponds to the crudelis of the Vulgate or the English cruel. The essential idea is rather that of vehemence, destructiveness, etc. It is rendered accordingly in various forms, without any implication of a moral kind, by the Septuagint (anaToi), Lowth (inexorable), Gesenius (furchtbar), and others.—The following words, as well as ^tss, are construed by Cocceius as in apposition with mm di^—the day itself being described as cruelty, wrath etc. Gesenius, in his commentary, repeats dv, fearful, and (a day of) wrath etc. In his translation he supplies another word—full of anger etc. Ewald and others supply a preposition—with wrath etc. Another possible construction would be to suppose a change of subject—c The day of Jehovah is coming and (so is) his wrath etc.’ In that case, mm is of course the subject of ^w*. Upon the other supposition it may agree with d*i% but without a change of meaning. The most vigorous though not the most exact translation of these epithets is Luther’s (grausam, grimmig, zornig.) Most interpreters, from Jarchi downwards, understand •pstn to be Babylonia; but the Septuagint makes it mean the earth or world (oi’xovl*wt]v) as in v. 5. This explanation is revived by the three latest writers whom I have consulted, Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, the last of whom understands the term as an allusion to the universal sway of the Babylonian empire.—The moral causes of the ruin threatened are significantly intimated by the prophet’s calling the people of the earth or land its sinners. As the national offences here referred to, Vitringa enumerates pride (v. 11. 14: 11. 47: 7, 8), idolatry (Jer. 50: 38), tyranny in general (14: 12, 17), and oppression of God’s people in particular (47: 6).—In the laying of the land waste, Junius supposes a particular allusion to the submerging of the Babylonian plains, by the diversion of the waters of Euphrates.
10. The day of Jehovah is now described as one of preternatural and awful darkness, in which the very sources of light shall be obscured. This natural and striking figure for sudden and disastrous change is of frequent occurrence in Scripture (see Isai. 24: 23. 34: 4. Ezek. 32: 7, 8. Joel 2: 10. 3: 15. Amos 8: 9. Matth. 24: 29). Well may it be called a day of wrath and terror—for the stars of the heavens and their signs (or constellations) shall not shed their light—the sun is darkened in his going forth—and the moon shall not cause its light to shine.—It can only be from misapprehension of the connexion between this verse and the ninth, that Lowth translates ^3 yea!—According to Hitzig and Knobel, the darkening of the stars is mentioned first, because the Hebrews reckoned the day from sunset.—Vitringa and J. D. Michaelis understand the image here presented to be that of a terrific storm, veiling the heavens, and concealing its luminaries. But grand as this conception is, it falls short of the Prophet’s vivid description, which is not that of transient obscuration but of sudden and total extinction.-—The abrupt change from the future to the preterite and back again, has been retained in the translation, although most modern ver sions render all the verbs as presents. From simply foretelling the extinction of the stars, the Prophet suddenly describes that of the sun as if he saw it, and then adds that of the moon as a necessary consequence.—Clericus explains d-^w as a synonyme of ^os in the sense of hope or confidence, and refers the suffix to the Babylonians, who were notoriously addicted to astrology and even to astrolatry. The stars of heaven which are (literally, and or even) their confidence etc. This ingenious exposition seems to have commended itself to no other writer, though Malvenda does likewise sup pose a special allusion to the astrological belief and practice of the Babylonians. Theodotion and Aquila retain the Hebrew word (ysotleafi). Jerome gives the vague sense splendour, the Peshito that of strength or host. Calvin and others render it by sidera. Vitringa makes it mean the planets, Junius the constellations, as distinguished from the stars. Rabbinical and other writers make b^ba the name of a particular star, but differ as to its identity. The latest writers have gone back to the version of the Septuagint (6 ‘&QIWV) and Luther (sein Orion), except that they restore the plural form of the original. The proofs of the identity of Nimrod and Orion, as hunters transferred to the heavens, in the oriental and classical mythology, have been arrayed, with a minuteness of detail and a profusion of learning out of all proportion to the exegetical importance of the subject, by J. D. Michaelis, in his Supplement ad lexx. Hebr. p. 1319 seq.—Gesenius on the passage now before us—and Lee on Job 9:9. It is commonly agreed that the word, which occurs elsewhere only in the singular (Job 9: 9. 38: 31. Amos 5: 8), is here used in the plural to give it a generic sense. Orions i. e. Orion and other brilliant constellations. To express this idea most of the recent versions exchange the proper name for an appellative. The word Bilder used by the latest German writers seems to have reference to the signs of the Zodiac. Ewald alone retains the primary meaning (seine Orionen). In this, as in many other cases, the spirit of the passage is no where more felicitously given than in Luther’s energetic paraphrase. Die Sterne am Himmel und sein Orion scheinen nicht helle; die Sonne gehet Jinster auf, und der Mond scheinet dunkel.
11. The Prophet according to his custom (vide supra, ch. 1: 22. 5: 7. 11: 9), now resolves his figures into literal expressions, showing that the natural convulsions just predicted are to be understood as metaphorical descriptions of the divine judgments. And I will visit upon the world (its) wickedness (i. e. manifest my presence for the purpose of punishing it)—and upon the wicked their iniquity—and I will cause to cease the arrogance of presumptuous sinners—and the pride of tyrants (or oppressors) I will humble. The primary meaning of ^SPJ is retained in the versions of Junius (orbis habitabilis) and Cocceius (frugiferam terram), who regards the use of this word as a proof that the prophecy relates to Israel (populus per verbum Dei cultus.) It is no doubt a poetical equivalent to fiK, and is here ap plied to the Babylonian empire, as embracing most of the known world. Thus the Roman empire, as Lowth shows, was called universus orbis Romanus, and Minos, in Ovid, speaks of Crete as meus orbis. Hitzig makes bsn nsn mean the evil world, but the parallel expression which immediately follows, and the analogy of Jer. 23: 2. Ex. 20: 5, are decisive in favour of the usual construction.—The Septuagint makes D^S^IS synonymous with t^T (y7ieQj]<:f)dr(ov), and the Vulgate makes it simply mean the powerful (fortium). But active violence is an essential part of the meaning. The English Ver sion and some others adopt the sense of terrible (from •pi? to terrify); but the latest interpreters prefer the meaning given by Calvin, Clericus, and others (tyrannorum).
12. To the general description in the foregoing verse he now adds a more specific threatening of extensive slaughter, and a consequent diminu tion of the population, expressed by a strong comparison. I will make man more scarce (or rare) than pure gold, and a human being than the ore of Ophir.—115135* and fi’is cannot here denote a difference of rank, as we and six sometimes do, because neither of them is elsewhere used in the distinctive sense of vir or avfa. They are really poetical equivalents, like man and mortal or human being, which last expression is employed by Henderson.
TQ is regarded as a proper name by Bochart, who applies it to the Coromandel coast, and by Huet, who supposes it to be a contraction of tsw, and this a variation of “PBiat. Gill speaks of some as identifying t& with Fez, and TIBIK with Peru. tB and dro are either poetical synonymes of ant, or emphatic expressions for the purest, finest, and most solid gold. The Septuagint version of the last words is 6 M-&OS 6 lv 2ovyiQ, instead of which the Arabic translation founded on it has the stone which (comes) from India. The disputed question as to the locality of Ophir, although not without historical and archaeological importance, can have no effect upon the meaning of this passage. Whether the place meant be Ceylon, or some part of continental India, or of Arabia, or of Africa, it is here named simply as an Eldorado, as a place where gold abounded, either as a native product or an article of commerce, from which it was brought, and with which it was associated in the mind of every Hebrew reader. For the various opinions and the arguments by which they are supported, see the geographical works of Bochart and Rosenmiiller, Winer’s Realworterbuch, Gesenius’s Thesaurus, and Henderson’s note upon the verse before us.—Instead of making rare or scarce, the meaning put upon “npix by Jerome and by most modern writers, some retain the original and strict sense of making dear or costly, with allusion to the impossibility of ransoming the Babylonians from the Medes and Persians. This interpretation, which Henderson ascribes to Grotius, was given long before by Calvin, and is indeed as old as Kimchi. Barnes, and some older writers, understand the words as expressive of the difficulty with which defenders could be found for the city. Henderson speaks of some as having applied the verse, in an individual sense, to Cyrus and to the Messiah. The latter application is of Jewish origin and found in the book Zohar. Jarchi explains the verse as having reference to the honour put upon the prophet Daniel as the decipherer of the writing on the wall. The Targum makes it a promise of protection to the godly and believing Jews in Babylon. Cocceius, while he gives the words the sense now usually put upon them, as denoting paucity of men in consequence of slaughter, still refers them to the small number of Jews who were carried into exile.—From the similar forms “Ppix and *ihEix at the beginning and the end of the sentence, Gesenius infers that a paronomasia was intended by the writer, which as usual he imitates, with very indifferent success, by beginning his translation with seltener and ending it with seltene Schdtze. Henderson, with great probability, denies that the writer intended any assonance at all. On the modern theory of perfect parallelisms, it would be easy to construct an argument in favour of understanding VBIX as a verb, and thereby rendering the clauses uniform. Such a conclusion, like many drawn from similar premises in other cases, would of course be worthless.
13. The figurative form of speech is here resumed, and what was before expressed by the obscuration of the heavenly bodies is now denoted by a general commotion of the frame of nature. Therefore I will make the heavens tremble, and the earth shall shake (or be shaken) out of its place in the wrath of Jehovah of Hosts and in the day of the heat (or fierceness) of his anger. Henderson translates “(Sr^s because, which is not only inconsistent with the usage of the words, but wholly unnecessary. Therefore may either mean because of the wickedness mentioned in v. 11, or for the purpose of producing the effect described in v. 12. In the last clause, some give a the sense of by or on account of in both members. Others explain the first a thus, but take the other in its proper sense of in. It is highly improbable, however, that the particle is here used in two different senses, and the best construction, therefore, is the one which lets the second a determine the meaning of the first—in the wrath i. e. during (or in the time of) the wrath.
14. And it shall be (or come to pass, that) like a roe (or antelope) chased (or driven by the hunters) and like sheep with none to gather them (literally, like sheep and there is no one gathering)—each to his people, they shall turn—and each to his country, they shall flee.—The English Version seems to make the earth the subject of njrt, with which, however, it does not agree in gender. Gesenius and Hitzig make the verb indefinite, one shall be. Aben Ezra and Jarchi supply Babylon or the Babylonians. The best construction is that given by DeWette, Umbreit, and Knobel, who take i-nrj in its common idiomatic sense of coming to pass, happening. Kimchi refers the verse to the foreign residents in Babylon (^cf> »’55rt> OJJS) JM3)—what Jeremiah calls the mingled people (50: 37) and JEschylus the ndiAuwtov ofiov of Babylon. Calvin supposes an allusion not to foreign residents but mercenary troops or allies. Clericus applies the last clause to these strangers, and the first to the Babylonians themselves, which is needless and arbitrary. The ^aa, according to Bochart and Gesenius, is a generic term including all varieties of roes and antelopes. The points of comparison are their timidity and fleetness. The figure of scattered sheep, without a gatherer or shepherd, is a common one in Scripture. Junius connects this verse with the twelfth, and throws the thirteenth into a parenthesis, a construction complex in itself and so little in accordance with the usage of the language, that nothing short of exegetical necessity can warrant its adoption.
15. The flight of the strangers from Babylon is not without reason, for every one found (there) shall be stabbed (or thrust through), and every one joined (or joining himself to the Babylonians) shall fall by the sword. All interpreters agree that a general massacre is here described, although they differ as to the precise sense and connexion of the clauses. Some suppose a climax. Thus Junius explains the verse to mean that not only the robust but the decrepit (nso: from nao to consume) should be slain, and the same interpretation is mentioned by Kimchi. Hitzig takes the sense to be that every one, even he who joins himself (i. e. goes over to the enemy), shall perish; they will give no quarter. Others suppose an antithesis, though not a climax. Gesenius in the earlier editions of his lexicon explains the verse as meaning that he who is found in the street, and he who with draws himself into the house, shall perish alike. Lowth makes the anti thesis between one found alone and one joined with others. Umbreit supposes an antithesis not only between Nxraa and MSD3, but also between np-p and s-inn ^151—the one clause referring to the first attack with spears, the other to the closer fight with swords hand to hand. J. D. Michaelis changes the points, so as to make the contrast between him who remains and him who flees, and Henderson extracts the same sense from the common text, avowedly upon the ground that tt£D3 must denote the opposite of KJZsi. But even the most strenuous adherent of the theory of perfect parallelisms must admit that they are frequently synonymous and not invariably antithetical. In this case there is no more need of making the participles opposite in meaning than the nouns and verbs. And as all except Umbreit (and perhaps Knobel) seem agreed that to be thrust through and to fall by the sword are one and the same thing, there is every probability that both the clauses have respect to the same class of persons. Upon this most natural and simple supposition, we may either suppose x^3 and na&5 to denote the person found and the person caught, as Ewald and Gesenius do, or retain the old interpretation found in Kimchi, which connects the verse directly with the one before it, and applies both clauses to the foreigners in Babylon, every one of whom still found there, and still joined with the besieged, should be surely put to death.
16. The horrors of the conquest shall extend not only to the men, but to their wives and children. And their children shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes, their houses shall be plundered and their wives ravished. The same thing is threatened against Babylon in Ps. 137: 9, in retaliation for the barbarities practised in Jerusalem (2 Chr. 36: 17. Lam. 5: 11). The horror of the threatening is enhanced by the addition of before their eyes. (Compare ch. 1: 7 and Deut. 28: 31,32.) Hitzig coolly alleges that the last clause of this verse is copied from Zech. 14: 2, to which Knobel adds, that the spoiling of the houses is here out of place.— For the textual reading fiten the Keri, here and elsewhere, substitutes as a euphemistic emendation. 17
17. The Prophet now, for the first time, names the chosen instruments of Babylon’s destruction. Behold I (am) stirring up against them Madai (Media or the Medes), who will not regard silver, and (as for) gold, they will not take pleasure in it (or desire it). Here, as in Jer. 51: 11, 28, the Medes alone are mentioned, as the more numerous and hitherto more powerful nation, to which the Persians had long been subject, and were still auxiliary. Or the name may be understood as comprehending both, which Vitringa has clearly shown to be the usage of the classical historians, by citations from Herodotus, Thucydides, and Plutarch. Indeed, all the names of the great oriental powers are used, with more or less latitude and license, by the ancient writers, sacred and profane. As the Medes did not become an independent monarchy till after the date of this prediction, it affords a striking instance of prophetic foresight, as J. D. Michaelis, Keith. Barnes, and Henderson, have clearly shown. It is chiefly to evade such proofs of inspiration that the modern Germans assign these chapters to a later date.—“rn is properly the name of the third son of Japhet, from whom the nation was descended. At the date of this prediction they formed a part of the Assyrian empire, but revolted at the time of the Assyrian invasion of Syria and Israel. Their first king Dejoces was elected about 700 years before the birth of Christ. His son Phraortes conquered Persia, and the united Medes and Persians, with the aid of the Babylonians, subdued Assyria under the conduct of Cyaxares I. The conquest of Babylon was effected in the reign of Cyaxares II. by the Median army, with an auxiliary force of thirty thousand Persians, under the command of Cyrus, the king’s nephew.—In the last clause of the verse Hitzig and Knobel understand the Medes to be described as so uncivilized as not to know the value of money. Others suppose contempt of money to be mentioned as an honourable trait in the national character, and Vitringa has pointed out a very striking coincidence between this clause and the speech which Xenophon ascribes to Cyrus. “Av$Q£<i Mijdoi, xal ndvreg oi naQovreg, tyw vfias olda Gayug, on ovrs XQWUTCM deopevoi GVV Ipol QfafaTS %. t. L The most natural interpretation is, however, that the thirst of blood would supersede the thirst of gold in the conquerors of Babylon, so that no one would be able to secure his life by ransom. Even Cocceius admits that this verse relates to the conquest of Babylon, but only, as he thinks, by a sudden change of subject, or at least a transition from God’s dealings with his people to his dealings with their enemies.
18. And bows shall dash boys in pieces—and the fruit of the womb they shall not pity—on children their eye shall not have mercy.—Augusti needlessly continues the construction from the foregoing verse—’ they shall not delight in gold, but in bows which etc.’ The Septuagint has the bows of the young men (to&vpaTa veanay.wv) which is inconsistent with the form of the original. The Vulgate, Luther, and Calvin, ‘ with their bows they shall dash in pieces.’ But the feminine form nara’nn must agree with wind£, as Aben Ezra has observed. Clericus and Knobel think that bows are here put for bowmen, which is a forced construction and unnecessary. Hendewerk supposes the bow to be mentioned, as in many other cases, as one of the most common and important weapons. Other interpreters appear to be agreed, that there is special allusion to the large bows and skilful archery of the ancient Persians, as described by Herodotus, Xenophon, and Ammianus Marcellinus. Kimchi’s extravagant idea that the Medes are here described as shooting children from their bows instead of arrows, is strangely copied by some later writers. There is more probability in the opinion, that they are represented as employing their large massive bows instead of clubs. There is no serious objection, however, to the common supposition, that the effect described is that of arrows or of bows used in the ordinary manner. The strong term dash in pieces is employed instead of one more strictly appropriate, with evident allusion to its use in v. 16. There is no need of giving c”nS3 the sense of young men. It rather denotes children of both sexes, as D^a does when absolutely used. Hendewerk and some older writers understand by the fruit of the womb the unborn child (see Hos. 14: 1. Amos 1: 13. 2 Kings 8: 12, 15, 16). Gesenius and others make it simply equivalent to children, as in Gen. 30: 2. Deut. 7: 13. Lam. 2: 20. The cruelty of the Medes seems to have been proverbial in the ancient world. Diodorus Siculus makes one of his characters ask, “ What destroyed the empire of the Medes?” Their cruelty to those beneath them.” Compassion is ascribed to the eye, says Knobel, because it is expressed in the looks. Kimchi observes that this is the only case in which the future of Wn has u instead of o.
19. From the very height of splendour and renown, Babylon shall be reduced not only to subjection but to annihilation. And Babylon, the beauty (or glory) of kingdoms, the ornament, the pride, of the Chaldees. shall be like God’s overthrowing Sodom and Gomorrah — i. e. shall be totally destroyed in execution of a special divine judgment. According to Kimchi, ias means delight (“j^ri), and mabaa 13^ that in which the nations delighted. It is now agreed, however, that its meaning, as determined both by etymology and usage, is beauty. The same Hebrew word/i is applied as a distinctive name to a class of animals remarkable for grace of form and motion. (Vide supra, v. 14.) The beauty of kingdoms is by most writers understood comparatively as denoting the most beautiful of kingdoms, either in the proper sense or in that of royal cities (see 1 Sam. 27: 5). But Knobel understands the words more strictly as denoting the ornament of an empire which included various tributary kingdoms. This agrees well with the next clause which describes the city as the ornament and pride of the Chaldees. The origin of this name, and of the people whom it designates, is doubtful and disputed. But whether the Chaldees were of Semitic origin or not, and whether they were the indigenous inhabitants of Babylonia or a foreign race imported from Armenia and the neighbouring countries, it is plain that the word here denotes the nation of which Babylon was the capital. For a statement of the archaeological question, see Gesenius’s Thesaurus, torn. 2. p. 719—Winer’s Realworterbuch, vol. 1. p. 253—and Henderson’s note on Isaiah 23: 13.—By most interpreters “paw m&tsn are construed together as denoting ornament of pride i. e. proud ornament. The same sense, with a slight modification, is expressed in the Vulgate (inclyta superbia) and by Luther (herrliche Pracht). Equally simple, and perhaps more consistent with the Masoretic interpunction, is the separate construction of the words by Junius and Tremellius (ornatus excellentiaque), still better expressed, without supplying and, by the Dutch Version (de heerlickheyt, de hoovaerdigheyt)—and in English by Barnes (the ornament, the pride).—In the last clause, the verbal noun nrsn^ is construed with the subject in the genitive and the object in the accusative (Gesen. Lehrg. p. 668). It has been variously paraphrased—as when God overthrew So dom and Gomorrah—like Sodom and Gomorrah which God overthrew— like the overthrow with which God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah—like the overthrow of God with which he overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah—but the exact sense of the Hebrew words is that already given—like God’s overthrowing Sodom and Gomorrah. This is a common formula in Scripture for complete destruction, viewed as a special punishment of sin. (Vide supra, ch. 1: 7, 9.) The allegation of the Seder Olam, as cited both by Jarchi and Kimchi, that Babylon was suddenly destroyed by fire from heaven in the second year of Darius, is a Jewish figment designed to reconcile the prophecy with history. It is certain, however, that the destruction of the city was by slow degrees, successively promoted by the conquests of Cyrus, Darius Hystaspes, Alexander the Great, Antigonus, Demetrius, the Parthians, and the founding of the cities of Seleucia and Ctesiphon. Strabo calls Babylon pEyfaqv sQ^iav. Pausanias says that in his day ovdsv s-ii fy ei M za/off. In Jerome’s time this wall only served as the enclosure of a park or hunting ground. From this apparent disagreement of the prophecy with history, Cocceius seems disposed to infer that it relates not to the literal but spiritual Babylon. The true conclusion is that drawn by Calvin, that the prophecy does not relate to any one invasion or attack exclusively, but to the whole process of subjection and decay, so completely carried out through a course of ages, that the very site of ancient Babylon is now dis puted. This hypothesis accounts for many traits in the description which appear inconsistent only in consequence of being all applied to one point of time and one catastrophe exclusively.
20. It shall not be inhabited forever (i. e. it shall never again or no more be inhabited) and it shall not be dwelt in from generation to generation (literally, to generation and generation)—neither shall the Arab pitch tent there—neither shall shepherds cause (their flocks) to lie there. The conversion of a populous and fertile district into a vast pasture-ground, how ever rich and well frequented, implies extensive ruin, but not such ruin as is here denounced. Babylon was not even to be visited by shepherds, nor to serve as the encamping ground of wandering Arabs. The completeness of the threatened desolation will be seen by comparing these expressions with ch. 5: 5, 17. 7: 21. 17: 2, where it is predicted that the place in question should be for flocks to lie down with none to make them afraid. So fully has this prophecy been verified that the Bedouins, according to the latest travellers, are even superstitiously afraid of passing a single night upon the site of Babylon. The simplest version of the first clause would be, she shall not dwell forever, she shall not abide etc. And this construction is actually given by Calvin and Ewald. But the great majority of writers follow the Septuagint and Vulgate in ascribing to the active verbs a passive or intransitive sense. Kimchi explains this usage on the ground that the city is made to represent its inhabitants—she dwells for her people dwell. This intransitive usage of the verbs is utterly denied by Hengstenberg on Zechariah 12: 6 (Christol. II. 286), but maintained against him by Gesenius in his Thesaurus (II. 635). The result appears to be, that in a number of cases, the intransitive version is required by the context. The only objection to it in the case before us is that it does not here seem absolutely necessary. The choice therefore lies between the general usage of -^J”1 and -pa as active verbs, and their special usage in connexion with prophecies of desolation. The sense of sitting on a throne, ascribed to 39•> here by Gataker, and elsewhere by Hengstenberg, does not agree so well with that of the other verb and with the general import of the threatening. On the whole, the passive or neuter construction, though not absolutely necessary, is the most satisfactory and natural.—brn is explained by the rabbinical interpreters as a contraction of bn*o, the Kal of which is used in the sense of pitching a tent or encamping, Gen. 13: 12, 18. (See Gesenius § 67. Rem. 2.) This explanation is adopted by most modern writers. Rosenmiiller and Ewald, however, make the form a Hiphil one for VTIX?. Hitzig takes it likewise as a Hiphil, but from bns, to lead (flocks) to water, which is also found connected with the Hiphil of f:n in Ps. 23: 2. Hendewerk objects that although this verb is repeatedly used by Isaiah, it is always in the Piel form (ch. 40: 11. 49: 10. 51: 18). The Hiphil occurs nowhere else, and the contraction assumed by Hitzig rarely if at all. The derivation from bnx is assumed in the Chaldee Paraphrase and Vulgate Version.— Barnes applies this clause to the encampment of caravans, and supposes it to mean that wayfarers will not lodge there even for a night. But the mention of shepherds immediately afterwards renders it more probable that the allusion is to the nomadic habits of the Bedouins, who are still what Strabo represents them, half shepherds and half robbers (axrjvirai lyaTQixoi rives xcu *0tpmx0t’)9 passing from one place to another when their plunder or their pasture fails. Gesenius suggests that ims may here be used generically to denote this class of persons or their mode of life. There can be no doubt, however, that Arabians, properly so called, do actually overrun the region around Babylon with their flocks and herds, although, as we have seen, they refuse to take up their abode upon the doomed site of the vanished city.
21. Having excluded men and the domesticated animals from Babylon, the Prophet now tells how it shall be occupied, viz. by creatures which are only found in deserts, and the presence of which therefore is a sign of desolation. In the first clause these solitary creatures are referred to in the general; the other clause specifies two kinds out of the many which are else where spoken of as dwelling in the wilderness. But there (instead of flocks) shall lie down desert creatures—and their houses, (those of the Babylonians) shall be Jilted with howls or yells—and there shall dwell the daughters of the ostrich—and shaggy beasts (or wild goats) shall gambol there. The contrast is heightened by the obvious allusion in i^s^i and lisw to the “p’Un and i^ST1 of v. 20. As if he had said, flocks shall not lie down there, but wild beasts shall; man shall not dwell there, but the ostrich shall. The meaning evidently is that the populous and splendid city should become the home of animals found only in the wildest solitudes. To express this idea, other species might have been selected with the same effect. The endless discussions therefore as to the identity of those here named, however laud able as tending to promote exact lexicography and natural history, have little or no bearing on the interpretation of the passage. The fullest state ment of the questions in detail may be found in Bochart’s Hierozoicon and in Gesenius’s Thesaurus, under the several words and phrases. Nothing more will be here attempted than to settle one or two points of comparative importance. Many interpreters regard the whole verse as an enumeration of particular animals. Thus Qn”<:2 has been rendered wild-cats, monkeys, vampyres; c^nx owls, weasels, dragons etc. etc. This has arisen from the assumption of a perfect parallelism in the clauses. It is altogether natural, however, to suppose that the writer would first make use of general expressions and afterwards descend to particulars. This supposition is con firmed by the etymology and usage of n^ss, both which determine it to mean those belonging to or dwelling in the desert. In this sense, it is sometimes applied to men (Ps. 72: 9. 74: 14), but as these are here excluded by the preceding verse, nothing more was needed to restrict it to wild animals, to which it is also applied in ch. 34: 14 and Jer. 50: 39. This is now commonly agreed to be the meaning, even by those who give to dins a specific sense. The same writers admit that dTix properly denotes the howls or cries of certain animals, and only make it mean the animals themselves, because such are mentioned in the other clauses. But if B^S has the generic sense which all now give it, the very parallelism of the clauses favours the explanation of t^nx in its original and proper sense of howls or yells, viz. those uttered by the d^s. The common version (doleful creatures) is too indefinite on one of these hypotheses, and too specific on the other. The daughter of the ostrich is an oriental idiom for ostriches in general, or for the female ostrich in particular. The old trans lation owls seems to be now universally abandoned. The most interesting point in the interpretation of this verse has reference to the word E^rir. The history of its interpretation is so curious as to justify more fulness of detail than usual. It has never been disputed that its original and proper sense is hairy, and its usual specific sense he-goats. In two places (Lev. 17: 7. 2 Chron. 11: 15), it is used to denote objects of idolatrous worship, probably images of goats, which according to Herodotus were worshipped in Egypt. In Chronicles especially this supposition is the natural one, because the word is joined with d^bw calves. Both there and in Leviticus, the Septuagint render^ it paTaiois vain things, i. e. false gods, idols. But the Targum on Leviticus explains it to mean demons (“pTc), and the same interpretation is given in the case before us by the Septuagint (daipona), Targum (“pita), and Peshito (j?j^,). The Vulgate in Leviticus translates the word daemonibus, but here pilosi. The interpretation given by the other three versions is adopted also by the Rabbins, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi, etc. It appears likewise in the Talmud and early Jewish books. From this traditional interpretation of B^StiJ, here and in ch. 34: 14, appears to have arisen, at an early period, a popular belief among the Jews, that demons or evil spirits were accustomed to haunt desert places in the shape of goats or other animals. And this belief is said to be actually cherished by the natives near the site of Babylon at the present day.—Let us now compare this Jewish exposition of the passage with its treatment among Christians. To Jerome, the combination of the two meanings goats, and demons, seems to have suggested the Pans, Fauns, and Satyrs of the classical mythology, imaginary beings represented as a mixture of the human form with that of goats, and supposed to frequent forests and other lonely places. This idea is carried out by Calvin, who adopts the word satyri in his version, and explains the passage as relating to actual appearances of Satan under such disguises. Luther, in like manner, renders it Feldgeister. Vitringa takes another step, and understands the language as a mere concession or allusion to the popular belief, equivalent to saying, the solitude of Babylon shall be as awful as if occupied by Fauns and Satyrs—there, if anywhere, such beings may be looked for. In explaining how D^WU came to be thus used, he rejects the supposition of actual apparitions of the evil spirit, and ascribes the usage to the fact of men’s mistaking certain shaggy apes (or other animals approaching to the human form) for incarnations of the devil. Forerius and J. D. Michaelis understand the animals themselves to be here meant. The latter uses in his version the word Waldteufel (wood-devils, forest-demons), but is careful to apprize the reader in a note that it is the German name for a species of ape or monkey, and that the Hebrew contains no allusion to the devil. The same word is used by Gesenius and others in its proper sense. Saadias, Cocceius, Clericus, and Henderson, return to the original meaning of the Hebrew word, to wit, wild goats. But the great majority of modern writers tenaciously adhere to the old tradition. This is done, not only by the German neologists, who lose no opportunity of finding a mythology in Scripture, but by Lowth, Barnes, and Stuart, in his exposition of Rev. 11:2 and his Ex cursus on the Angelology of Scripture (Apocal. II. 403). The arguments in favour of this exposition are (1) the exegetical tradition of the Jews— (2) their popular belief, and that of the modern orientals, in such apparitions—(3) our Saviour’s allusion (Matth. 12: 43) to the unclean spirit, as walking through dry places, seeking rest and finding none—(4) the description of Babylon in Rev. 18: 2, as the abode of demons, and the hold (or prison-house) of every foul spirit and of every unclean and hateful bird, with evident allusion to the passage now before us. Upon this state of the case, it may be remarked (I) that even on the supposition of a reference to evil spirits, there is no need of assuming any concession or accommodation to the current superstitions. If o^sis denotes demons, this text is a proof, not of a popular belief, but of a fact, of a real apparition of such spirits under certain forms. (2) The Jewish tradition warrants the application of the Hebrew term to demons, but not to the fauns or satyrs of the Greek and Roman fabulists. (3) The fauns and satyrs of the classical mythology were represented as grotesque and frolicsome, spiteful and mischievous, but not as awful and terrific beings, such as might naturally people horrid solitudes. (4) The popular belief of the Jews and other orientals may be traced to the traditional interpretation of this passage (see Stuart ubi supra), and this to the Septuagint version. But we do not find that any of the modern writers adopt the Septuagint version of M3S^ maa (asiQ^vst;) or of o”ix in the next verse (pvoxevravgoi). If these are mere blunders or conceits, so may the other be, however great its influence on subsequent opinions. (5) There is probably no allusion in Matth. 12: 43 to this passage, and the one in Rev. 18: 2 is evidently founded on the Septuagint version, which was abundantly sufficient for the purpose of a symbolical accommodation. What the Greek translators incorrectly gave as the meaning of this passage might be said with truth of the spiritual Babylon. (6) The mention of demons in a list of beasts and birds is at variance not only with the favourite canon of parallelisms, but with the natural and ordinary usages of language. Such a combination and arrangement as the one supposed—ostriches—de mons—wolves—jackals—would of itself be a reason for suspecting that the second term must really denote some kind of animal, even if no such usage existed. (7) The usage of D^SE, as the name of an animal, is perfectly well defined and certain. Even in Lev. 17: 7 and 2 Chron. 11: 15, this, as we have seen, is the only natural interpretation.—The result appears to be that if the question is determined by tradition and authority, ^”psttj de notes demons; if by the context and the usage of the word, it signifies wild goats, or more generically hairy, shaggy animals. According to the principles of modern exegesis, the latter is clearly entitled to the preference; but even if the former be adopted, the language of the text should be regarded, not as “ a touch from the popular pneumatology “ (as Rev. 18: 2 is described by Stuart in loc.), but as the prediction of a real fact, which, though it should not be assumed without necessity, is altogether possible, and there fore, if alleged in Scripture, altogether credible. The argument in favour of the strict interpretation, and against the traditional and current one, is presented briefly, but with great strength and clearness, in Henderson’s note upon the passage.
22. And wohes shall howl in his (the king of Babylon’s) palaces, and jackals in the temples of pleasure. And near to come is her (Babylon’s) time, and her days shall not be prolonged.—The names a^x and d^Dn have fyeen as variously explained as those in v. 21. The latest writers seem to be agreed that they are different appellations of the jackal, but in order to retain the original variety of expression, substitute another animal in one of the clauses, such as wolves (Gesenius), wild-cats (Ewald) etc. As D”1”1;*, according to its etymology, denotes an animal remarkable for its cry, it might be rendered hyenas, thereby avoiding the improbable assumption that precisely the same animal is mentioned in both clauses. But whatever be the species here intended, the essential idea is the same as in the foregoing verse, viz. that Babylon should one day be inhabited exclusively by animals peculiar to the wilderness, implying that it should become a wilderness itself. The contrast is heightened here by the particular mention of palaces and abodes of pleasure, as about to be converted into dens and haunts of solitary animals. This fine poetical conception is adopted by Milton in his sublime description of the flood— And in their palaces, Where luxury late reigned, sea-monsters whelped And stabled. The meaning of rnaabx, in every other case where it occurs, is widows, in which sense some rabbinical and other writers understand it here. But as it differs only in a single letter from niiais palaces, and as b and *i are sometimes interchanged, it is now commonly regarded as a mere orthographical variation, if not an error of transcription. It is possible, however, that the two forms were designedly confounded by the writer, in order to suggest both ideas, that of palaces and that of widowhood or desolation. This explanation is adopted in the English Version, which has palaces in the margin, but in the text desolate houses. Henderson avoids the repetition of palaces, by rendering the second phrase temples of pleasure, which affords a good sense, and is justified by usage. The older writers explain!-ii^ as denoting a responsive cry; but the latest lexicographers make answer a secondary meaning of the verb, which they explain as properly denoting to sing, or to utter any inarticulate sound, according to the nature of the subject. Hence it is here translated howl.—The last clause of the verse may be strictly understood, but in application to the Jewish captives in the Babylonian exile, for whose consolation the prophecy was partly intended. Or we may understand it as denoting proximity in reference to the events which had been passing in the Prophet’s view. He sees the signals erected —he hears a noise in the mountains—and regarding these as actually present, he exclaims, her time is near to come! It may, however, mean, as similar expressions do in other cases, that when the appointed time should come, the event would certainly take place, there could be no postpone ment or delay.
