THE destruction of Babylon is again foretold, and more explicitly connected with the deliverance of Israel from bondage. After a general assurance of God’s favour to his people, and of an exchange of conditions between them and their oppressors, they are represented as joining in a song of triumph over their fallen enemy. In this song, which is universally admitted to possess the highest literary merit, they describe the earth as again reposing from its agitation and affliction, and then breaking forth into a shout of exultation, in which the very trees of the forest join, vs. 1-8. By a still bolder figure, the unseen world is represented as perturbed at the approach of the fallen tyrant, who is met, as he enters, by the kings already there, amazed to find him sunk as low as themselves and from a still greater height of actual elevation and of impious pretensions, which are strongly contrasted with his present condition, as deprived not only of regal honours but of decent burial, vs. 9-20. The threatening is then extended to the whole race, and the prophecy closes as before with a prediction of the total desolation of Babylon, vs. 21-23.
Vs. 24-27 are regarded by the latest writers as a distinct prophecy, unconnected with what goes before, and misplaced in the arrangement of the book. The reasons for believing that it is rather an appendix or conclusion, added by the Prophet himself, will be fully stated in the exposition.
Vs. 28-32 are regarded by a still greater number of writers as a distinct prophecy against Philistia. The traditional arrangement of the text, how ever, creates a strong presumption that this passage stands in some close connexion with what goes before. The true state of the case may be, that the Prophet, having reverted from the downfall of Babylon to that of Assyria, now closes with a warning apostrophe to the Philistines who had also suffered from the latter power, and were disposed to exult unduly in its over throw. If the later application of the name Philistia to the whole land of Canaan could be justified by Scriptural usage, these verses might be under stood as a warning to the Jews themselves not to exult too much in their escape from Assyrian oppression, since they were yet to be subjected to the heavier yoke of Babylonian bondage. Either of these suppositions is more reasonable than that this passage is an independent prophecy subjoined to the foregoing one by caprice or accident.
1. This verse declares God’s purpose in destroying the Babylonian power. For Jehovah will pity (or have mercy upon) Jacob, and will again (or still) choose Israel and cause them to rest on their (own) land—and the stranger shall be joined to them—and they (the strangers) shall be attached to the house of Jacob. Jacob and Israel are here used for the whole race. The plural pronoun them does not refer to Jacob and Israel as the names of different per sons, but to each of them as a collective. For the same reason WBCS is plural though agreeing with “lyrt. By God’s still choosing Israel we are to under stand his continuing to treat them as his chosen people. Or we may render Tls again, in which case the idea will be, that having for a time or in appearance cast them off and given them up to other lords, he would now take them to himself again. Gesenius gives two specimens in this verse of his disposition to attenuate the force of the Hebrew words by needlessly departing from their primary import. Because “inn is occasionally used where we should simply speak of loving or preferring, and because the Hiphil of ri^ to rest, is sometimes used to signify the act of laying down or placing, he adopts these two jejune and secondary senses here.—In this he is closely followed by DeWette. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Umbreit, have the good taste to give *iria its distinctive sense, but Ewald alone among the later Germans has done full justice to the meaning of both words, by translating the first choose and the other give them rest. The Vulgate takes the a after “ins as a partitive (eliget de Israel), whereas it is the usual connective particle between this verb and its object. It is allowable, but not necessary, to give the Niphals in the second clause a reflexive meaning, as some writers do. Mibi) is followed by bs as in Numbers 18:2. Knobel understands by *ian the surviving Canaanites, some of whom went into captivity with Israel (Ezek. 14: 7. 47: 22), and others remained in possession of the land (Ezra 9: 1 seq.) But there seems to be no reason for restrict ing the meaning of the word, especially as a general accession of the gentiles is so often promised elsewhere. According to Cocceius and Gill, the maxim of the Talmud, that proselytes are like a scab, is founded on the affinity of the verb nabs with the noun nnsb.—Umbreit correctly understands this not as a mere promise of temporal deliverance and increase to Israel as a nation, but as an assurance that the preservation of the chosen people was a necessary means for the fulfilment of God’s purposes of mercy to mankind in general.—The literal fulfilment of the last clause in its primary sense is clear from such statements as the one in Esther 8: 17.
2. And nations shall take them and bring them to their place— and the house of Israel shall take possession of them on Jehovah’s land for male and female servants—and (thus) they (the Israelites) shall be the cap tors of their captors, and rule over their oppressors. The first clause is rendered somewhat obscure by the reference of the pronoun them to different subjects, first the Jews and then the gentiles. Umbreit renders ^’£$ tribes (Stamme), and seems to refer it to the Jews themselves, and the first suffix to the gentiles, thereby making the construction uniform. The sense will then be, not that the gentiles shall bring the Jews home, but that the Jews shall bring the gentiles with them. Most interpreters, however, are agreed that the first clause relates to the part taken by the gentiles in the restoration of the Jews.—To a Hebrew reader the word ibnanrj would convey the idea, not of bare possession merely, but of permanent possession, rendered perpetual by hereditary succession. The word is used in this sense, and with special reference to slaves or servants, in Lev. 25: 46.—It is curious to observe the meanings put upon this promise by the different schools and classes of interpreters. Thus Grotius understands it of an influx of foreign ers after Sennacherib’s invasion in the reign of Hezekiah, an interpretation equally at variance with the context and with history. Cocceius, as the other pole or opposite extreme, applies it to the final deliverance of the Christian Church from persecution in the Roman empire, and its protection by Constantius and establishment by Constantine. Clericus and others find the whole fulfilment in the number of foreign servants whom the Jews brought back from exile (Ezra 2: 65). Calvin and others make the change predicted altogether moral, a spiritual conquest of the true religion over those who were once its physical oppressors. It is scarcely possible to compare these last interpretations without feeling the necessity of some exegetical hypothesis by which they may be reconciled. Some of the worst errors of interpretation have arisen from the mutual exclusion of hypotheses as incompatible, which really agree, and indeed are necessary to complete each other. The simple meaning of this promise seems to be that the church or chosen people and the other nations should change places, the oppressed becoming the oppressor, and the slave the master. This of course admits both an external and internal fulfilment. In a lower sense and on a smaller scale it was accomplished in the restoration of the Jews from exile; but its full accomplishment is yet to come, not with respect to the Jews as a people, for their pre-eminence has ceased for ever”,’ buWith respect to the church, including Jews and gentiles, which has succeeded to the rights and privileges, promises and actual possessions, of God’s ancient people. The true principle of exposition is adopted even by the Rabbins. Jarchi refers the promise to the future (TW^), to the period of complete redemption. Kimchi more explicitly declares that its fulfilment is to be sought partly in the restoration from Babylon, and partly in the days of the Messiah.
3. And it shall be (or come to pass) in the day of Jehovah’s causing thee to rest from thy toil (or suffering), and from thy commotion (or dis quietude), and from the hard service which was wrought by thee (or imposed upon thee). The precise construction of the last words seems to be, in which (or with respect to which) it was wrought with thee i. e. they (inde finitely) wrought with thee, or thou wast made to work. The nominative of 123? is not rnhsj nor the relative referring to it, but an indefinite subject understood. This impersonal construction makes it unnecessary to account for the masculine form of the verb as irregular. Aben Ezra refers ^ss> and tin to pain of body and pain of mind, Cocceius to outward persecutions and internal divisions of the church. But they are much more probably equivalent expressions for pain and suffering in general. In this verse and the follow ing context, the Prophet, in order to reduce the general promise of the fore going verse to a more graphic and impressive form, recurs to the downfall of Babylon, as the beginning of the series of deliverances which he had predicted, and describes the effect upon those most concerned, by putting into the mouth of Israel a song of triumph over their oppressor. This is universally admitted to be one of the finest specimens of Hebrew and indeed of ancient composition.
4. That thou shalt raise this song over the ~kwg of Babylon and say, How hath the oppressor ceased, the golden (city) ceased! The Vav at the beginning continues the construction from rrjni in v. 3, and can only be expressed in our idiom by that.—x&; is not merely to begin or to utter, but to raise, as this word is employed by us in a musical sense, including the ideas of commencement, utterance, and loudness.—btia is not so called from btiJE to rule, but from bttto to resemble or compare. Its most general sense seems to be that of tropical or figurative language. The more specific senses which have been ascribed to it are for the most part suggested by the context. Here it may have a special reference to the bold poetical fiction following. If so, it may warn us not to draw inferences from the passage with respect to the unseen world or the state of departed spirits. Calvin’s description of the opening sentence as sarcastic has led others to describe the whole passage as a satire, which is scarcely consistent with its peculiar merit as a song of triumph.—Tptf is an exclamation of surprise, but at the same time has its proper force as an interrogative adverb, as appears from the answer in the following verse.—’to is properly a task-master, slave-driver, or tax-gatherer, ^rna is derived by the Rabbins and many modern writers from sri’n, the Chaldee form of 3!”jt gold, in which Junius sees a sarcasm on the Babylonians, and Gesenius an indication that the writer lived in Babylonia! According to this etymology, the word has been explained by Vitringa as meaning a golden sceptre—by others the golden city—the place or repository of gold—the exactress of gold, taking the word as a participial noun—the exaction of gold, taking it as an abstract — or gold itself, considered as a tribute. From dubious Arabic analogies, Schultens and others have explained it to mean the destroyer or the plunderer. J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans are disposed to read rcmE oppression, which is found in one edition, appears to be the basis of the ancient versions, and agrees well with the use of to and torn? in ch. 3: 5. Ewald gives it the strong sense of tyrannical rage.—The meaning of the first clause is of course that Israel would have occasion to express such feel ings. There is consequently no need of disputing when or where the song was to be sung. Equally useless is the question whether by the king of Babylon we are to understand Nebuchadnezzar, Evilmerodach, or Belshazzar. The king here introduced is an ideal personage, whose downfall represents that of the Babylonian monarchy.
5. This verse contains the answer to the question in the one before it. Jehovah hath broken the staff of the wicked, the rod of the rulers. The meaning tyrants, given to the last word by Gesenius and the later Germans, is implied but not expressed. The rod and staff are common figures for dominion, and their being broken for its destruction. There is no need of supposing a specific reference either to the rod of a task-master, with Gesenius, or to the sceptre of a king, with Ewald and the older writers.
6. Smiting nations in anger by a stroke without cessation—ruling nations in wrath by a rule without restraint—literally, which he (or one indefinitely) did not restrain.—The participles may agree grammatically either with the rod or with the king who wields it. Junius and Tremellius suppose the punishment of the Babylonians to be mentioned in both clauses. 1 *As for him who smote the nations in wrath, his stroke shall not be removed —he that ruled the nations in anger is persecuted and cannot hinder it.’ The English Version, Lowth, Barnes, and others, apply the last clause only to the punishment. But the great majority both of the oldest and the latest writers make the whole descriptive of the Babylonian tyranny. Kimchi. Calvin, and Vatablus, read the last clause thus—(if any one was) *perse cuted, he did not hinder it. Dathe reads 5]na as an active participle (v^n^), and this reading seems to be likewise supposed in the Chaldee, Syriac, and Latin versions. Some make t^a a verbal noun, meaning persecution, though the passive form is singular, and scarcely accounted for by Henderson’s suggestion, that it means persecution as experienced rather than as practised. All the recent German writers have adopted Doederlein’s proposal to amend the text by changing t]Tia into rvna3 a construct form like ro», and derived like it from the immediately preceding verb. Striking a stroke without cessation, swaying a sway without restraint, will then cor respond exactly, as also the remaining phrases, peoples and nations, wrath and anger. Of all the emendations founded on the principle of parallelism, there is none more natural or plausible than this, the rather as the letters interchanged are much alike, especially in some kinds of Hebrew writing, and as the sense is very little affected by a change of persecution into domination. Henderson, however, though he admits the plausibility, denies the necessity of this emendation. It may also be observed that a general application of this principle of criticism would make extensive changes in the text. For although there may be no case quite so strong as this, there are doubtless many where a slight change would produce entire uniformity. And yet the point in which the parallelism fails may sometimes be the very one designed to be the salient or emphatic point of the whole sentence. Such emendations should be therefore viewed with caution and suspicion, unless founded on external evidence, or but slightly affecting the meaning of the passage, as in the case before us. Umbreit, who adopts Doederlein’s suggestion, gives to rni and rvna what is supposed to be their primary sense, that of treading or trampling under foot.—Cocceius, who applies this to the tyranny of Antichrist, explains rn& iftba as a compound noun (like ^”^ ch. 10: 15) meaning non-apostasy, and having reference to the persecution of true Christians on the false pretence of heresy, schism, or apostasy. By the side of this may be placed Abarbenel’s interpretation of the whole verse as relating to God himself.
7. At rest, quiet, is the whole earth. They burst forth into singing (or a shout of joy). Jarchi seems to make the first clause the words of the song or shout mentioned in the second. There is no inconsistency between the clauses, as the first is not descriptive of silence, but of tranquillity and rest. The land had rest is a phrase employed in the book of Judges (e. g. ch. 5: 31) to describe the condition of the country after a great national deliverance.—There is no need of supposing an ellipsis of fi^iE’i, to agree with the plural insg, as Henderson does, since it may just as well be con strued with V^n as a collective, or indefinitely, they (i. e. men in general) break forth into singing. Ewald, who gives the whole of this VUJE in a species of blank verse, is particularly happy in his version of this sentence. (Nun ruht, nun rastet die game Erde, man bricht in Jubel aus.) The verb to burst is peculiarly descriptive of an ebullition of joy long suppressed or suddenly succeeding grief. Rosenmuller quotes a fine parallel from Terence. Jamne erumpere hoc licet mihi gaudium 1 The Hebrew phrase is beauti fully rendered by the Septuagint, floa psr eiyQoavv-ys. It is a curious illustration of the worth of certain arguments, that while Gesenius makes the use of this phrase a proof that this prediction was not written by Isaiah, Henderson with equal right adduces it to prove that he was the author of the later chapters, in which the same expression frequently occurs.
8. Not only the earth and its inhabitants take part in this triumphant song or shout, but the trees of the forest. Also (or even) the cypresses rejoice with respect to thee—the cedars of Lebanon—(saying) now that thou art fallen (literally lain down), the feller (or woodman, literally the cutter) shall not come up against us. Now that we are safe from thee, we fear no other enemy. The lana has been variously explained to be the fir, the ash, and the pine; but the latest authorities decide that it denotes a species of cypress. According to J. D. Michaelis, Antilibanus is clothed with firs, as Libanus or Lebanon proper is with cedars, and both are here introduced as joining in the general triumph. Vitringa makes wbs a noun with a suffix, meaning our leaves or our tops (cacumina nostra). Among other reasons, he alleges that n”}3 is not construed with bs elsewhere. But the accents might have taught him that w}& is dependent on nV.3£, and that rvnbv! is to be construed as a noun. Forerius reads on us, and supposes an allusion to the climbing of the tree by the woodman, in order to cut off the upper branches. Knobel refers the words in the same sense to the falling of the stroke upon the trees. It is much more natural, however, to regard the words as meaning simply to us, or more emphatically against us. The preposition in ^?, here as elsewhere, strictly denotes general relation, as to, with respect to. The specific sense of over or against, in all the cases which Gesenius cites, is gathered from the context. Instead of liest Pagninus has skepest, which might be metaphorically applied to death, but is not really the meaning of the word, which denotes a sleeping posture but not sleep itself. As to the meaning of the figures in this verse, there are three distinct opinions. The first is that the trees are emblems of kings and other great men. This is the explanation given in the Targum, and by Cocceius, Vitringa, and other interpreters of that school. The second opinion is that the trees, as such, are introduced rejoicing that they shall no more be cut down to open roads or to supply materials for barricades or forts or for luxurious buildings. This prosaic exposition, proposed by Aben Ezra and approved by Grotius, is a favourite with some of the writers at the present day who clamour loudest about Hebrew poetry, and insist most rigorously on the application of the so-called laws of versification. The third opinion, and the only one that seems consistent with a pure taste, is the one proposed by Calvin, who supposes this to be merely a part of one great picture, representing universal nature as rejoicing. The symbolical and mechanical interpretations are as much out of place here, as they would be in a thousand splendid passages of classical and modern poetry, where no one yet has ever dreamed of applying them. Both here and elsewhere in the sacred books, inanimate nature is personified, and speaks herself instead of being merely spoken of. Ipsi laetitia voces ad sidera jactant Intonsi montes; ipsae jam carmina rupes, Ipsa sonant arbusla. The Septuagint version of r&3£ as a preterite (avt’pij), which is followed by all the early writers, is not only arbitrary and in violation of the usus loquendi, but also objectionable on the ground that it implies too long an interval between the utterance of the words and the catastrophe which called them forth. The trees are not to be considered as historically stating what has happened or not happened since a certain time, but as expressing, at the very moment of the tyrant’s downfall, or at least soon after it, a confident assurance of their future safety. In such a connexion txa corresponds exactly to the English now that. The present form given to both verbs (now that thou liest, no one comes etc.) by Luther and most of the later Germans, approaches nearer to the true construction, but is neither so exact nor so poetical as the literal translation of the future given by Rosenmiiller and Ewald, and before them by the Vulgate (non ascendet qui succidat nos). It is characteristic of Cocceius and his whole scheme, that he makes the firs and cedars mean not only great men in general, but ecclesiastical rulers in particular, and in his exposition of the verse refers expressly to the English bishops who became reformers, and to the case of the Venetians when subjected to a papal interdict in 1606. Such exposi- 18 tions have been well described by Stuart (Apocal. II. p. 147) as attempts to convert prophecy into a syllabus of civil and church history.
9. The bold personification is now extended from the earth and its forests to the invisible or lower world, the inhabitants of which are represented as aroused at the approach of the new victim and as coming forth to meet him. Hell from beneath is moved (or in commotion) for thee (i. e. on account of thee) to meet thee (at) thy coming—it rouses for thee the giants (the gigantic shades or spectres), all the chief ones (literally he-goats) of the earth—it raises from their thrones all the kings of the nations.—bi’sia has already been explained (vide supra, ch. 5: 14) as meaning first a grave or individual sepulchre, and then the grave as a general receptacle, indiscriminately occupied by all the dead without respect to character, as when we say, the rich and the poor, the evil and the good, lie together in the grave, not in a single tomb, which would be false, but under ground and in a common state of death and burial. The English word Hell, though now appropriated to the condition or the place of future torments, corresponds, in etymology and early usage, to the Hebrew word in question. Gesenius derives it, with the German Holle, from Hbhle hollow, but the English etymologists from the Anglo-Saxon helan to cover, which amounts to the same thing, the ideas of a hollow and a covered place being equally appropriate. The modern English versions have discarded the word hell as an equivocal expression, requiring explanation in order to be rightly understood. But as the Hebrew word Sheol, retained by Henderson, and the Greek word Hades, introduced by Lowth and Barnes, require explanation also, the strong and homely Saxon form will be preferred by every unsophisticated taste, not only to these Greek and Hebrew names, but also to the periphrases of Gesenius (Schattenreich) and Hendewerk (Todtenreich), and even to the simpler and more poetical expression (Unterwelt) employed by Hitzig and DeWette. Ewald and Umbreit have the good taste to restore the old word Holle in their versions.—Two expressions have been faithfully transcribed by interpreters from one another, in relation to this passage, with a very equivocal effect upon its exposition. The one is that it is full of biting sarcasm, an unfortunate suggestion of Calvin’s, which puts the reader on the scent for irony and even wit, instead of opening his mind to impressions of sublimity and tragic grandeur. The other, for which Calvin is in no degree responsible, is that we have before us not a mere prosopopoeia or poetical creation of the highest order, but a chapter from the popular belief of the Jews, as to the locality, contents, and transactions of the unseen world. Thus Gesenius, in his Lexicon and Commentary, gives a minute topographical description of Sheol, as the Hebrews believed it to exist. With equal truth a diligent compiler might construct a map of hell, as conceived of by the English Puritans, from the descriptive portions of the Paradise Lost. The infidel interpreters of Germany regard the Scriptural and classical mythology precisely in the same light. But when Christian writers copy their expressions or ideas, they should take pains to explain whether the popular belief, of which they speak, was true or false, and if false, how it could be countenanced and sanctioned by inspired writers. This kind of exposition is moreover chargeable with a rhetorical incongruity in lauding the creative genius of the poet, and yet making all his grand creations commonplace articles of popular belief. The true view of the matter, as determined both by piety and taste, appears to be, that the passage now before us comprehends two elements and only two, religious verities or certain facts, and poetical embellishments. It may not be easy to distinguish clearly between these; but it is only between these that we are able or have any occasion to distinguish. The admission of a tertium quid, in the shape of superstitious fables, is as false in rhetoric as in theology. —Gesenius, in the earlier editions of his Lexicon, and in his Commentary on Isaiah, derives ^NS^I from fiBn to be weak, and makes it a poetical description of the manes, shades, or phantoms of the unseen world. In the last edition of his Lexicon, he derives it from KSn to be still or quiet, a supposititious meaning founded on an Arabic analogy. By this new derivation he destroys the force of the argument derived from the expression in the next verse, ’ thou art become weak (rnbn) as we,’ to which it may also be objected that if the author designed any such allusion he would probably have used the word ms”i from nan. The ancient versions and all the early writers understand it to mean giants, to avoid which Gesenius makes D^xsn in the prose books a mere proper name derived from xsn or nsn the ancestor. But this last always has the article, and no exegetical tradition is more uniform than that which gives to Rephaim the sense of giants. Its application to the dead admits of several explanations, equally plausible with that of Gesenius, and entitled to the preference according to the modern laws of lexicography, because instead of multiplying they reduce the num ber of distinct significations. Thus the shades or spectres of the dead might naturally be conceived as actually larger than the living man, since that which is shadowy and indistinct is commonly exaggerated by the fancy. Or there may be an allusion to the Canaanitish giants who were exterminated by divine command and might well be chosen to represent the whole class of departed sinners. Or in this particular case, we may suppose the kings and great ones of the earth to be distinguished from the vulgar dead as giants or gigantic forms. Either of these hypotheses precludes the necessity of finding a new root for a common word, or of denying its plain usage else where. As to mere poetical effect, so often made a test of truth, there can be no comparison between the description of the dead as weak or quiet ones, and the sublime conception of gigantic shades or phantoms.—Aben Ezra and Kimchi call attention to the fact that VM, in this one verse is construed both with a masculine and feminine verb. Hitzig explains this on the ground that in the first clause Sheol is passive, in the second active; Maurer with more success upon the ground that the nearest verb takes the feminine or proper gender of the noun, while the more remote one, by a common license, retains the masculine or radical form, as in ch. 33: 9. (See Gesenius <§> 141. Rem. 1.) Another method of removing the anomaly is afforded by an ingenious conjecture of J. D. Michaelis, who detaches ^aia from what precedes and makes it the subject of the verb *nis. Thy coming rouses the gigantic shades. This is also recommended by its doing away with the somewhat harsh construction of *]5O3 adverbially after “jn&npb. There is nothing indeed to hinder the adoption of this simple change, but the general expediency of adhering to the Masoretic interpunction wherever it is possible. Some of the older writers refer “1*1 is to the King of Hell, the objection to which is not its inconsistency with Hebrew mythology, but its being wholly arbitrary.—Because nftFitt is sometimes simply equivalent to rntn, Gesenius here prefers this secondary and diluted meaning to the one which he himself gives as the primary and proper one, and which is really demanded by the figure of Hell’s being roused and coming forth (or as it were, coming up) to meet him. The appropriateness of the strict sense here is recognized by Knobel, who renders it ’ von unten her, namlich entgegen dem von oben kommenden Chaldaer-konige.’—Kings are poetically called DiTins as the leaders of the flocks. J. D. Michaelis adopts another reading, on the ground that his readers might have laughed at the idea of he-goats rising from their thrones. But as this combination is at variance with the accents, the laugh might have been at the translator’s own expense. Hitzig indeed proposes to change the interpunction, but he translates a^ins the mighty ones (Machtigen).—According to Clericus, the dead kings are here represented as arising from their ordinary state of profound repose upon their subterranean thrones, a supposition not required by the terms of the description, though it adds to its poetical effect. The same may be said of the opinion, that the kings here meant are specifically those whom the king of Babylon had conquered or oppressed. Kimchi seems to think that they are first represented as alarmed at the approach of their old enemy, but afterwards surprised to find him like themselves. fttJH however does not necessarily imply fear, but denotes agitation or excitement from whatever cause.—Cocceius of course finds a reference in this clause to the history of the Reformation.
10. All of them shall answer and say to thee—thou also art made weak as we—to us art likened! Calvin persists in saying haec sunt ludibria, and his successors in discovering severe taunts, bitter irony, and biting sarcasm, in this natural expression of surprise that one so far superior to themselves should now be a partaker of their weakness and disgrace. The idiomatic use of answer, both in Hebrew and in Greek, in reference even to the person speaking first, is so familiar that there can be no need of diluting it to say with Calvin (loquentur), or transforming it into accost with Lowth and Barnes, or commence with Henderson and the modern Germans. Nor is it necessary to suppose, with CEcolampadius, that they answer his thoughts and expectations of welcome with a taunting speech. Luther seems to adopt the old interpretation of responsive or alternate speech (um einander reden). Gesenius makes answer a secondary sense, but a different deduction is proposed by Winer, who makes reference to another person an essential part of the meaning. Pagninus translates it here vociferabuntur.—The interrogative form given to the last clause by Calvin and all the English versions is entirely arbitrary, and much less expressive than the simple assertion or exclamation preferred by the oldest and latest writers. Augusti supposes the words of the D^a*i to extend through v. 11, Rosenmuller through v. 13, and some have even carried it through v. 20; but Vitringa, Lowth, Gesenius, and the later writers, more correctly restrict it to the verse before us, partly because such brevity is natural and appropriate to the case supposed, partly because the termination is other wise not easily defined. It is perfectly conceivable, however, that in such a piece of composition, the words of the chief speaker and of others whom he introduces, might insensibly run into one another without altering the sense.—As ^uraa does not elsewhere take bs after it, Knobel supposes a construct™ praegnans (Gesen. <§> 138), ’ thou art made like and actually brought to us,’ but this supposition is entirely gratuitous.
11. Down to the grave is brought thy pride (or pomp)—the music of thy harps—under thee is spread the worm—thy covering is vermin. That bHS£ is here used in its primary sense of grave, is clear from the second clause, “p&w, like the English pride, may either signify an affection of the mind or its external object. The size and shape of the c^bsa are of no exegetical importance here, as the word is evidently put for musical instruments or music in general, and this for mirth and revelry. (Vide supra, ch. 5: 12.) Both the nouns in the last clause are feminine, while the verb and participle are both masculine. This has led the latest writers to explain -p&DB as a noun. Lowth reads -JOSE in the singular, on the authority of several manuscripts, versions and editions. According to Gesenius and the later Germans, -peaa is itself a singular form peculiar to the derivatives of hb roots. (See his Heb. Gr. <§> 90.) But even if it be a plural, coverings may as well be said as clothes. Luther makes sx^ also a noun meaning bed. DeWette makes it an impersonal verb; a bed is made under thee with vermin (gebettet ist unter dir mit Gewi’irm). Gesenius treats it as a mere anomaly or idiomatic license of construction. (See his Heb. Gr. <§> 144. a.) Kimchi’s explanation is that collective nouns admit both of a masculine and feminine construction. Junius and others suppose an allusion to the practice of embalming; but the words seem naturally only to suggest the common end of all mankind, even the greatest not excepted. The imagery of the clause is vividly exhibited in Gill’s homely paraphrase— 1 *nothing but worms over him and worms under him, worms his bed and worms his bed-clothes’—or as Ewald expresses it, with a curious allusion to the domestic usages of Germany, *’ worms, instead of silk, become his under and his upper bed.’‘—The expression is not strengthened but weakened by Lowth’s interrogations, which are besides entirely arbitrary. As the Hebrew language has a form to express interrogation, it is not to be assumed in the absence of this form without necessity.
12. How art thou fallen from heaven, Lucifer, son of the morning —felled to the ground, thou that didst lord it over the nations. In the two other places where ^n occurs (Ezek. 21: 17. 11: 2), it is an imperative signifying howl. This sense is also put upon it here by the Peshito, Aquila, Jerome in his commentary, and J. D. Michaelis. { *Howl son of the morning for thy fall.’ Von Colin makes the clause a parenthetical apostrophe—i How art thou fallen from heaven, oh king—howl son of the morning for his fall! The first construction mentioned was originally given by Rosenmiiller and Gesenius, both of whom afterwards adopted an other, found in all the ancient versions but the Syriac, in all the leading Rabbins, and in most of the early Christian writers. This interpretation makes the word a derivative of bbn to shine, denoting *bright one, or more specifically bright star, or according to the ancients more specifically still the morning star or harbinger of daylight, called in Greek swacpoQog and in Latin lucifer. The same derivation and interpretation is adopted by the latest German writers, except that they read t^n to avoid the objection, that there is no such form of Hebrew nouns as b^n, and that where this form does occur, as we have seen, it is confessedly a verb. Tertullian and other Fathers, Gregory the Great, and the scholastic commentators, regard ing Luke 10: 18 as an explanation of this verse, apply it to the fall of Satan, from which has arisen the popular perversion of the beautiful name Lucifer to signify the Devil. Erroneous as this exposition is, it scarcely deserves the severe reprehension which some later commentators give it who receive with great indulgence exegetical hypotheses much more absurd. In the last clause Knobel makes the Prophet represent the morning star as cut out from the solid vault of heaven, a convincing proof, of course, that the sacred writers entertained absurd ideas of the heavenly bodies. All other writers seem agreed that in the last clause the figure of a prostrate tree succeeds that of a fallen star. Clericus, Vitringa, and several other Latin writers, introduce another verb between rsiaa and yixb (excisus dejectus in terram) on the ground that these do not cohere. In our idiom, however, there is no need of supplying any thing, to fell or cut down to the ground being equally good Hebrew and English. Junius and Tremellius give to tt&in a passive or neuter sense, as in Job 14: 10, and make the clause comparative—weakened above (i. e. more than) the nations. It is commonly explained, however, as a description of the Babylonian tyranny. Hitzig and Hendewerk understand the image to be that of a tree overspreading other nations, as in Ezekiel 31: 6, 17. Gesenius and Umbreit, with the older writers, give ttJbn the sense of weakening, subduing, or discomfiting, as in Ex. 17: 13. The bs is then a mere connective like the English preposition in the phrase to triumph over or to lord it over. Cocceius regards it as an elliptical expression for ^>3> ^ws—oppressing those who were over the nations—and applies it to the tyranny of the papal see over the monarchies of Europe, after specifying some of which he adds with great naivete, Iongum esset in omnia ire. Vitringa adopts the same construction of bs mbn but applies the verse to the literal king of Babylon. J. H. Michaelis takes ir&in as a noun (debilitator) which removes the difficulty as to the construction. The Peshito and J. D. Michaelis give to iabn the unauthorized sense of despising, looking down upon. Calvin adopts an ancient Jewish opinion that it means casting lots upon the nations, as to the time or order of attack, or as to the treatment of the conquered.
13. His fall is aggravated by the impious extravagance of his pretensions. And (yet) thou hadst said in thy heart (or to thyself)—the heavens will I mount (or scale)—above the stars of God will I raise my throne—and I will sit in the. mount of meeting (or assembly)—in the sides of the north. It is universally agreed that he is here described as aiming at equality with God himself. Grotius understands by heaven the land of Judah, and by stars the doctors of the law. Vitringa explains heaven to be the sanctuary, and stars the priests. Cocceius applies the whole verse to the usurpations of the Roman See. But most interpreters receive the first clause in its natural meaning. As to the other, there are two distinct interpretations, one held by the early writers, the other by the moderns since John David Michaelis. According to the first, isi’a-in is analogous to ISfte”^^, and denotes the mountain where God agreed to meet the people, to commune with them, and to make himself known to them (Ex. 25: 22. 29: 42, 43). Calvin indeed gives to ^sia the sense of testimony or cove nant, but does not differ from the rest as to the application of the phrase. All the interpreters, who are now referred to, understand by ista—itt Mount Zion or Mount Moriah. Those who adopt the former explanation are under the necessity of explaining sides of the north by the assumption that Zion lay upon the north side of Jerusalem, which is expressly taught by Kimchi (oitn» p5ii jVi o), Grotius, Junius, Clericus, and Lightfoot. Others, admitting the notorious fact that Zion was on the south side of the city, suppose the mountain meant to be Moriah, lying on the north side of Zion. So Cocceius, Vitringa, Gataker, and others. On the same hypo thesis, both Zion and Moriah might have been included, one as the mount of congregation and the other as the sides of the north, in reference to the tabernacle and temple, as the places where God’s presence was successively revealed. According to this view of the passage, it describes the king of Babylon as insulting God by threatening to erect his throne upon those consecrated hills, or even affecting to be God, like Antichrist, of whom Paul says, with obvious allusion to this passage, that he opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped, so that he, as God, sitteth in the temple of God, showing himself that he is God (2 Thess. 2: 4). To this interpretation three objections have been urged. I. The first is that it involves an anticlimax unworthy of Isaiah. After threaten ing to ascend the heavens and surmount the stars, something equally or still more aspiring might have been expected; but instead of this, he simply adds, I will sit upon Mount Zion and Mount Moriah north of it. This by itself can have little weight, partly because it is a mere rhetorical objection, partly because it supposes Zion and Moriah to be mentioned as mere hills, whereas they are referred to as the residence of God, and by his presence invested with a dignity equal at least to that of clouds and stars. 2. But in the next place it is urged that although this allusion to the sacred mountains of Jerusalem would be perfectly appropriate if uttered by a Jew, it is wholly misplaced in the mouth of a heathen, the rather as Isaiah makes the heathen speak elsewhere in accordance with their own superstitions, and not in the language of the true religion. (See ch. 10: 10. 36: 18, 19. 37: 12.) In weighing this objection, due allowance should be made for the facts, that the writer is himself a Hebrew, writing for the use of Hebrew readers, and that the conqueror, in uttering such a threat, would of course have reference to the belief of the conquered, and might therefore naturally threaten to rival or excel their God upon his chosen ground. 3. The third objection is that the failure of these impious hopes is obviously implied, whereas the threaten ing to take possession of Mount Zion and Moriah was abundantly fulfilled before the time at which we must suppose this song of triumph to be uttered. This is true, so far as the mere possession of the ground is concerned, l?ut not true as to the equality with God which the conqueror expected to derive from it, as the first clause clearly shows. He had said, I will sit upon the sacred hills, and thereby be the equal of Jehovah; but instead of this he is brought down to the grave. Whether the weight of argument preponderates in favour of the old interpretation or against it, that of authority is now altogether on the side of the new one. This, as originally stated by J. D. Michaelis, makes the Babylonian speak the language of a heathen, and with reference to the old and wide-spread oriental notion of a very high mountain in the extreme north, where the gods were believed to reside, as in the Greek Olympus. This is the Meru of the Hindoo mythology, and the Elborz or Elborj of the old Zend books. The details of this belief are given by Gesenius in the first appendix to his Commentary. According to J. D. Michaelis, there is also an allusion to this figment in the mention of the stars, which were supposed to rest upon the summit of the mountain. The mean ing of the clause, as thus explained, is, f I will take my seat among or above the gods upon their holy mountain.’ This interpretation is supposed to be obscurely hinted in the Septuagint Version (eV OQSI i>ip^/Lw, Inl ta OQTJ TO, vtyi]ka ta nQog POQQUV) and in the similar terms of the Peshito. Theodoret remarks upon the verse, that the highest mountains upon earth are said to be those separating Media and Assyria, meaning the highest summits of the Caucasus. The Targum also, though it renders nsia—tin mountain of the covenant, translates the last words X3is^ ^o extremities of the north. As the mythological allusion is in this case put into the mouth of a heathen, there is not the same objection to it as in other cases where it seems to be recognized and sanctioned by the writer. It may be made a question, however, whether the difficulty of an anticlimax is not as real here as in the other case. How is the oriental Olympus any more in keeping with the skies and stars, than Zion and Moriah, considered as the dwelling of Jehovah? It may also be objected that the usual meaning of W’a is here departed from, and that according to Gesenius’s own showing the sacred mountain of the Zend and Hindoo books is not in the extreme north but in the very centre of the earth. It might even be doubted whether ina-P •JIBS means the extreme north at all, were it not for the analogous expression in v. 15, which will be explained below. Notwithstanding these objections, all the recent writers have adopted this hypothesis, including Hengstenberg, who gives the same sense to ^iBst Td-n in his commentary on Ps. 48: 3. Ewald translates W’E—r* the mountain of all the gods (im Berge aller Gotter). The general meaning of the verse is of course the same on either hypothesis. It is characteristic of Knobel’s eagerness to convict the sacred writers of astronomical blunders, that he makes the simple phrase *above the stars mean on the upper side of the vault as the stars are on the under side. The expression stars of God does not merely describe them as his creatures, but as being near him, in the upper world or heaven.
14. I will mount above the cloud-heights’, I will make myself like the Most High. This is commonly regarded as a simple expression of unbounded arrogance; but Knobel thinks there may be an allusion to the oriental custom of calling their kings gods, or to the fact that Syrian and Phenician kings did actually so describe themselves (Ezek. 28: 2. 6. 9. 2 Mace. 9: 12). According to Grotius and Vitringa, the singular noun ss? is here used to designate the cloud of the divine presence in the tabernacle and temple. This would agree well with the old interpretation of v. 13; but according to the other hypothesis, z$ is a collective, meaning clouds in general. Hendewerk describes this as a literal explanation of the foregoing figures. It is commonly regarded as a continuation of them. Some under stand him to mean that he will ride upon the clouds as his chariot; but Gesenius, that he will control the clouds, as conquerors are elsewhere said to ride on the heights of the earth (ch. 58: 14. Deut. 32: 13. 33: 29. Mic. 1:3). Some suppose cloud to denote a multitude, as in the phrase a cloud of witnesses (Heb. 12: 1), and so understand the Chaldee Paraphrase (SE35 b=), which appears however to be only another method of expressing the idea of superiority. Gill thinks that the clouds may be the ministers of the word. Cocceius makes it mean the word itself, and the ascent above them the suppression of the Scriptures and their subordination to tradition by the church of Rome, from which he draws the inference that the Pope is not the vicar of Christ, but the king of Babylon, and adds with great simplicity, i *non morabimur in his, *quae sunt evidentia, diutius.’ As fiE/nx is a reflexive form (Gesen. § 53. 2), it means not merely I will be like, but I will make myself like, or as Michaelis supposes, I will act like. Sanctius understands him as declaring that he will work miracles as God had done so often from the clouds. As “p^s was a term also used by the Phenicians to denote the Supreme God, Henderson regards it here as specially emphatic. “ Not satisfied with making himself equal to any of the inferior deities, his ambition led him to aspire after an equality with the Supreme.” He also observes that the use of this term does not imply that the king of Babylon was a monotheist, since in all the modifications of polytheism, one god has been regarded as superior to the rest.
15. But instead of being exalted to heaven, thou shalt only be brought down to hell—(not to the sides of the north, but) to the depths of the pit.?jS has its proper sense of only (Winer s. v.) but in order to accommodate the idiom of other tongues is variously rendered but (Lowth), yes (J. D. Michaelis), no (Ewald) etc. Some interpreters observe that biXtfj is here confounded with the grave—others that lia must have the sense of MtfttJ—opposite deductions from the same parallelism. The cor rect view of the matter is taken by Knobel, who observes that the idea of itself is originally nothing more than that of the grave, so that the two run into one another, without any attempt to discriminate precisely what belongs exclusively to either. (Vide supra ad v. 9.) Against the strict application of the last clause to the grave is the subsequent description of the royal body as unburied. But the imagery is unquestionably borrowed from the grave. — Clericus and Barnes understand by sides the horizontal excavations in the oriental sepulchres or catacombs. But according to its probable etymology the Hebrew word does not mean sides in the ordinary sense, but rather hinder parts and then remote parts or extremities, as it is explained by the Targum here and in v. 13. The specific reference may be either to extreme height, extreme distance, or extreme depth, according to the context. Here the last sense is required by the mention of the pit, and the word is accordingly translated in the Vulgate profundum, and in the Septuagint more freely ta
16. Those seeing thee shall gaze (or stare) at thee, they shall look at thee attentively, (and say) is this the man that made the earth shake, that made kingdoms tremble? Umbreit, Knobel, and others suppose the Prophet to be still describing the reception of the king in the world below. Gill, on the contrary, says “ these are the words of the dead, speaking of the living, when they should see the carcass of the king of Babylon lying on the ground.” This agrees much better with the subsequent context; but the simplest and most natural supposition is that the scene in the other world is closed, and that the Prophet, or triumphant Israel, is now describing what shall take place above ground. The gazing mentioned in the first clause is not merely the effect of curiosity but of incredulous surprise. The Vulgate gives ima^ the specific sense of stooping down (inclinabuntur) in order to examine more attentively. J. D. Michaelis strangely ascribes to it the sense of regarding with tender sympathy, which is as arbitrary as Calvin’s favourite notion of derision, here repeated (iterum propheta regem deridet), and faithfully copied by the later writers. The prominent if not the only feeling here expressed is neither scorn nor pity but astonishment. siMi’an? is supposed to be descriptive of the salutary influence on the spectators, by Clericus (prudente se gerent) and Augusti (an deinem Beyspiele klug werden), and the same idea seems to be expressed by Aben Ezra (*p*323 to»3 wit). But the usual sense of paying strict attention is much more appropriate. Henderson’s idea that the Hithpael of -pa means to con sider and reconsider, as if unable to believe one’s senses, is not justified by usage, and appears to be founded on a misapprehension of a remark by Hitzig, who attaches the same meaning not to the peculiar form of one verb but to the junction of the two. Gesenius and DeWette weaken the second clause by changing its idiomatic form for a more modern one, before whom the earth shook, kingdoms trembled. Ewald, Umbreit, and Hendewerk. restore the original construction.
17. Made a (fruitful or habitable) world like the desert, destroyed its cities, and its captives did not set free homewards. These are still the words of the astonished spectators as they behold the body of the slain king. The contrast in the first clause is heightened by supposing an intentional allusion to the primary meaning of bnn, as expressed by Cocceius (frugiferam) and Junius (orbem habitalem). The version inhabited land, given by J. D. Michaelis and Augusti, would be still better but for the constant usage of ^nfi as an equivalent to y^ in its widest sense. Hitzig observes that bat-i must be taken as a masculine noun, in order to account for the suffix in 1^2, which cannot be referred to the king like that in I^ON. If so, it is better to refer the latter also to the same antecedent for the sake of uniformity, as Knobel does, since they may just as well be said to belong to the world as the cities. But the same end may be gained, and the anomaly of gender done away, by referring both the pronouns to the king himself, who might just as well be said to have destroyed his own cities as his own land and his own people (v. 20), the rather as his sway is supposed to have been universal. The construction of the last clause is somewhat difficult. The general meaning evidently is that he did not release his prisoners, and this is expressed in a general way by the Septuagint and Peshito. The Targum reads, who did not open the door to his captives; the Vulgate more exactly, the prison (carcerem). This construction supplies a preposition before captives, and regards the termination of firm as merely paragogic. Junius and Tr^pellius understand it as the local or directive n and make the word mean home or homewards (non solvebat reversuros domum). This construction is adopted by Henderson and others, who suppose the same ellipsis of the verb return or send before the last word. But the other recent versions follow DeDieu in connecting nrs directly with nma, with out supplying any thing, and giving to the verb itself the sense of releasing or dismissing. This construction is also given in the margin of the English Bible (did not let his prisoners loose homewards), while the text coincides with the Vulgate (opened not the house of his prisoners).
18. All kings of nations, all of them, lie in state (or glory), each in his house. There is here a special reference to the peculiar oriental feeling with respect to burial. Diodorus says that the Egyptians paid far more attention to the dwellings of the dead than of the living. Some of the great est national works have been intended for this purpose, such as the pyramids, the temple of Belus, and the cemetery at Persepolis. The environs of Jerusalem are full of ancient sepulchres. The want of burial is spoken of in Scripture as disgraceful even to a private person (1 Kings 13: 22,) much more to a sovereign (2 Chr. 21: 20. 34: 24). The ancient oriental practice of burying above ground and in solid structures, often reared by those who were to occupy them (vide infra, ch. 22: 16) will account for the use of house here in the sense of sepulchre, without supposing any reference to the burial of kings within their palaces, rv?3 is not used elsewhere absolutely in the same sense, but the grave is called dbis n^a (Ecc. 12: 5) and ^nba^ isia ma (Job 30: 23), the first of which phrases is copied in the Chaldee Paraphrase of that before us (m^bs maa). Henderson’s version He in state may seem inappropriate to burial, but is in fact happily descriptive of the oriental method of sepulture. Lowth’s version lie down gives too active a meaning to the verb, which is intended to describe the actual condition of the dead. The words of this verse might possibly be under stood to describe the generality of kings as dying in their beds and at home —they have lain down (i. e. died) each in his own house. But there is no need of dissenting from the unanimous judgment of interpreters, that the verse relates to burial. Knobel supposes a specific allusion to the kings whom the deceased had conquered or oppressed; but nothimg more is necessarily expressed by the words than the general practice with respect to royal bodies.
19. With the customary burial of kings- he now contrasts the treat ment of the Babylonian’s body. And thou art cast out from thy grave— like a despised branch, the raiment of the slain, pierced with the sword, going down to the stones of the pit, (even) like a trampled carcass (as thou art). Gesenius and the other modern writers understand the Prophet as contrasting the neglect or exposure of the royal body with the honour able burial of the other slain, those who are (soon) to go down to the stones of the grave, i. e. to be buried in hewn sepulchres. Hitzig understands by the stones of the pit, the stones which closed the mouths of the sepulchres, —Henderson, stone coffins or sarcophagi—-Knobel, the ordinary stone tombs of the East resembling altars. All these interpreters follow Cocceius in explaining aiab as a passive participle, clothed (i. e. covered) with the slain, which may also be the meaning of the Vulgate version, obvolutus cum his qui interfecti sunt gladio. But this form of expression, covered with the slain who are buried in stone sepulchres, is rather descriptive of a common burial than of any invidious distinction. It is much more natural to under stand Tia ^ax bx *Tp1 as a description of the indiscriminate interment of a multitude of slain in a common grave, such as a pit containing stones or filled with stones to cover the bodies. The reference assumed by the Dutch Annotators and Doederlein, to the covering of the slain with stones upon the surface of the earth, is forbidden by the terms going down and pit. The explanation just proposed would be consistent either with Cocceius’s interpretation of C33, or with the older one which makes it as usual a noun meaning raiment, and supplies the particle of comparison before it. In the latter case, the direct comparison is not with the bodies of the common dead, but with their blood-stained garments, as disgusting and abhorrent objects. As “,r^ occurs elsewhere only in Gen. 45: 17, where it means to load, Cocceius here translates it onustis gladio, and Junius onustorum (crebris ictibus) gladii. The later writers adopt the rabbinical derivation of the word from a cognate root in Arabic, which means to pierce or perforate. The kind of death is supposed by some to be particularly mentioned, in order to account for the staining of the garments. By nsns -.xa Lowth understands a tree on which a malefactor had been hung, and which was therefore looked upon as cursed (Deut. 21: 23. Gal. 3: 13), and according to Maimonides was buried with him. This ingenious combination accounts for the use of the strong word 2?r,:, which is scarcely applicable to the use less or even troublesome and noxious branches that are thrown aside and left to rot. To remove the same difficulty, J. D. Michaelis gives *i:g the supposititious sense of ulcer, here put for a leprous body. Some suppose isa to be here used, as in ch. 11:1, with a genealogical allusion, the despised branch or scion of a royal stock. 5paj?» is explained by Gesenius and Maurer to mean simply without a grave, by Hitzig and Knobel away from thy grave, on the ground that he had not been in it. This prosaic objection has not hindered Ewald from using the expressive phrase out of thy grave, which is no more incorrect or unintelligible than it is to speak of an heir as being deprived of his estate, or a king’s son of his crown, before they are in actual possession. Henderson even goes so far as to deny that “JE depends upon the verb at all, a statement equally at variance with usage and the masoretic accents. In order to reconcile this verse with the history of Nebuchadnezzar,.to whom they exclusively apply it, the Jews have an old tradition, given not only in the Seder Olam but by Jerome in almost the same words, that when Nebuchadnezzar recovered his reason, he found Evilmerodach his son upon the throne, and threw him into prison. When the father died, the son refused to become king again, lest his predecessor should again return; and in order to convince him of the old man’s death, the body was disinterred and exposed to public view. That the terms of the prediction were literally fulfilled in the last king of Babylon, Nabonned or Belshazzar, is admitted by Gesenius to be highly probable, from the hatred with which this dvocios fiaGifavg (as Xenophon calls him) was regarded by the people. Such a supposition is not precluded by the same historian’s statement that Cyrus gave a general permission to bury the dead; for, as Henderson observes, his silence in relation to the king rather favours the conclusion that he was made an exception, either by the people or the conqueror. There is no need, however, as we have already seen, of seeking historical details in this passage, which is rather a prediction of the down fall of the empire than of the fate of any individual monarch.
20. Thou shalt not be joined with them (the other kings of the nations) in burial, because thy land thou hast destroyed, thy people thou hast slain. Let the seed of evil-doers be named no more forever. Gesenius and other recent writers think the reference to the kings in v. 18 too remote, and this is one principal reason for interpreting v. 19 in the way already mentioned, as exhibiting a contrast between those who receive burial and those who do not. The sense of this verse then will be, thou shalt not be joined with them, i. e. with those who go down to the stones of the grave. But the remoteness of the antecedent in v. 18 ceases to occasion any difficulty when the whole of the nineteenth verse is a description of the king’s unburied and exposed condition. On this hypothesis, v. 18 describes the state of other deceased kings, v. 19 the very different state of this one, and v. 20 draws the natural inference, that the latter cannot be joined in burial with the former. Instead of thy land and thy people, the Septuagint has my land and my people, making the clause refer directly to the Babylonian conquest and oppression of Judea. Jerome suggests that the same sense may be put upon the common text by making thy land and thy people mean the land and people subjected to thy power in execution of God’s righteous judgments. But the only natural interpretation of the words is that which applies them to the Babylonian tyranny as generally exercised. The charge here brought against the king implies that his power was given him for a very different purpose. The older writers read the last clause as a simple prediction. Thus the English version is, the seed of evil-doers shall never be renowned. But the later writers seem to make it more emphatic by giving the future the force of an imperative or optative. For the sense of CWE:nt, vide supra, ch. 1: 4. Hitzig and Henderson take s-it even here in the sense of a race or generation, and suppose an;?? to refer to monumental inscriptions. Some of the older writers understand the clause to mean that the names of the wicked shall not be perpetuated by transmis sion in the line of their descendants. Others explain the verb as meaning to be called, i. e. proclaimed or celebrated. It is now pretty generally understood to mean, or to express a wish, that the posterity of such should not be spoken of at all, implying both extinction and oblivion.
21. That the downfall of the Babylonian power shall be perpetual, is now expressed by a command to slaughter the children of the king. Prepare for his sons a slaughter, for the iniquity of their fathers. Let them not arise and possess the earth, and Jill the face of the world with cities. This verse is regarded by Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Maurer, and Umbreit, as the close of the triumphal song beginning in v. 4. Hitzig and Hendewerk suppose it to have closed in the preceding verse, as the address is no longer to the king of Babylon. Ewald extends it through v. 23. But these distinctions rest upon a false assumption of exact and artificial structure. The dramatic form of the prediction is repeatedly shifted, so that the words of the triumphant Jews, of the dead, of the Prophet, and of God himself, succeed each other, as it were, insensibly, and without any attempt to make the points of the transition prominent. The command in the first clause is not addressed specifically to the Medes and Persians, but more indefinitely to the executioners of God’s decree against Babylon, or, as Calvin calls them, his lictores aut carnifices. The reference is not to the children of Nebuchadnezzar or Belshazzar, as the Rabbins and others have assumed, but to the progeny of the ideal being who here represents the Babylonian monarch. Hitzig, Umbreit, and Hendewerk, make naa» mean a place of slaughter (Schlachtbank), after the analogy of the cognate form natE. Gesenius and Ewald give it the general sense of massacre (Blutbad). There are three constructions of the last clause authorized by usage, wba may agree either with d^s, or with ^B, or with T$a. The last is entitled to the preference because it is the subject of the two preceding verbs. Cocceius, Hendewerk, Umbreit, and others make this last clause the expression of a hope or a promise—and (then) the world will (again) be full of cities—or, that the world may (again) be full of cities. Gesenius, who ascribes this construction to Von Kolln, objects that it gives to ba one half of its meaning (that), and rejects the other half (not}. But the sub junctive construction of the clause is a mere assimilation to the forms of occidental syntax. The Hebrew construction is, they shall not arise (or let them not arise), and the negative may either be confined to the first two verbs or extended to the third. The last, however, is more natural on account of the exact resemblance in the form of the two members, y^K and Varr^B ix^a.—The Targum, followed by the Rabbins, gives to the sense of enemies, as in 1 Sam. 28: 16. Ps. 139: 20, and fill the face of the world with enemies—or enemies fill the face of the world. This meaning of the word is adopted by Vitringa, Gesenius, Rosenmuller, and others. Hitzig reads d^”>3> ruins, Ewald d*s*H3» tyrants, Knobel dw wicked ones. The best sense, on the whole, is afforded by the old interpretation given by the Vulgate and Saadias, and retained by Umbreit and Hendewerk, which takes diis in its usual sense as the plural of w, and understands the clause to mean, lest they overspread and colonize the earth. The objection that the Babylonians had been just before described as wasters and destroy ers, cannot weigh against the constant usage of the word.
22. This verse contains an intimation that the destruction just predicted is to be the work not of man merely but of God, and is to comprehend not only the royal family but the whole population. And I (myself) will rise up against them (or upon them), saith Jehovah of Hosts, and will cut off from Babylon (literally, with respect to Babylon) name and remnant and progeny and offspring. The last four nouns are put together to express posterity in the most general and universal manner, “pi and “J35 occur together in Gen. 21: 13. Job 18: 19. The specific meaning son and nephew (i. e. nepos, grandson), given in the English Version and most of the early writers, and retained by Umbreit, is derived from the Chaldee Paraphrase (-Q nm “a). Aben Ezra makes the language still more definite by explaining tm to be a man himself, isia a father, “pa a son, and ^isa a grandson. This supposes iaW5 to be equivalent in meaning to “nan isis used in Lev. 18: 6. 25: 49 for a blood-relation. So Montanus renders it here, consanguineum. But the word which has that sense is of a different form, and according to Gesenius, of a different origin. The more general mean ing of the terms, now held to be correct, is given in the Septuagint (ovopa xal xardfoiwa x«« anfQpa) and the Vulgate (nomen et reliquias et germen et progeniem). Doederlein’s version, the fruitful and the barren, is entirely unauthorized. Grotius remarks upon the threatening of this verse, nempe ad tempus! Cocceius applies this verse and the one preceding to the civil and ecclesiastical dignitaries subject to the Roman See, and thinks it probable that “p? and w may be distinctive terms for bishops and kings. The threatening is applied by other classes of interpreters to Nebuchadnezzar and Belshazzar, but most correctly to the king of Babylon, not as a collective appellation merely, but as an ideal person representing the whole line of kings. The agreement of the prophecy with history is shown by J. D. Michaelis from the facts, that none of the ancient royal family of Babylon ever regained a throne, and that no Babylonian empire ever rose after the destruction of the first, Alexander the Great’s project of restoring it having been defeated by his death.
23. And I will render it (literally, place it for) a possession (or inheritance) of the porcupine, and pools of water, and will sweep it with the broom (or besom) of destruction. “IBJ? has been variously explained to be the tortoise, beaver, bittern etc., but since Bochart it is commonly agreed to mean the porcupine or hedgehog. It is here mentioned only as a solitary animal frequenting marshy grounds. The construction is not, I will make the pools of water a possession etc. by drying them up—nor, I will make it a possession for pools of water—but, I will make it a possession for the porcupine and (will convert it into) pools of water. The exposure of the level plains of Babylonia to continual inundation without great preventive care, 19 and the actual promotion of its desolation by this very cause, are facts dis tinctly stated by the ancient writers. Some suppose this evil to have had its origin in the diversion of the waters of the Euphrates by Cyrus. The Septuagint version of the last clause (xal #//’aoo avrfv TT^OV paQaftgov slg anwteiav), adopted with little variation by Clericus (demergam earn in profundum lutum ut earn perdam), and by Lowth (I will plunge it in the miry gulf of destruction), supposes ^nxsx-j to be derived from B*»B clay or mire. J. D. Michaelis refers it to an Arabic root meaning to sink or plunge, and thus excludes the allusion to mire (in den Abgrund des Nichts versenken). Three of the ancient versions, followed by the Talmud and rabbinical interpreters, make it mean to sweep, which is adopted by the latest writers. Gesenius formerly derived it from an obsolete root MB, but in his Thesaurus from B*<B, supposing the verb properly to mean the removal of dirt. Thus Aben Ezra explains KBXBB to be an instrument with which dirt is removed (p7t> 13 n’p’ppp). Lee, from an Arabic root, explains the clause to mean, I will humble it with the humiliation of destruction (Heb. Lex. s. v). The Vulgate renders ‘laajn as a participle (terens), in which it is followed by Calvin (evacuans), while others more correctly make it an infinitive or verbal noun.
24. From the distant view of the destruction of Babylon, the Prophet suddenly reverts to that of the Assyrian host, either for the purpose of making one of these events accredit the prediction of the other, or for the purpose of assuring true believers, that while God had decreed the deliverance of his people from remoter dangers, he would also protect them from those near at hand. Jehovah of Hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely (literally, if not) as I have planned (or imagined) it has come to pass, and as I have devised, it shall stand (or be established). On the elliptical formula of swearing, vide supra, ch. 5: 9. We may either supply before &6 B», with Calvin and Vitringa, let me not be recognized as God—or as Junius briefly and boldly expresses it, mentiar—or else we may suppose the elliptical expression to have been transferred from man to God, without regard to its original and proper import. Kimchi explains iirvTi to be a preterite used for a future (7>pi> oipflS tor); and this construction is adopted in most versions, ancient and modern. It is, however, altogether arbitrary and in violation of the only safe rule as to the use of the tenses, viz. that they should have their proper and distinctive force, unless forbidden by the context or the nature of the subject, which is very far from being the case here, as we shall see below. Gesenius and DeWette evade the difficulty by rendering both the verbs as presents, a construction which is often admissible and even necessary in a descriptive context, but when used indiscriminately or inappropriately, tends both to weaken and obscure the sense. Ewald and Umbreit make the first verb present and the second future, which is scarcely if at all less objectionable. The true force of the preterite and future forms, as here employed, is recognized by Aben Ezra, who explains the clause to mean that according to God’s purpose, it has come to pass and will come to pass hereafter (tvt> p 7’pri tvo pO- r^^le antitnesis is rendered still more prominent by Jarchi, by whom the verse is paraphrased as follows—’ Thou hast seen, oh Nebuchadnezzar, how the words of the prophets of Israel have been fulfilled in Sennacherib, to break Assyria in my land, and by this thou mayest know that what I have purposed against thee shall also come to pass.’ (Compare Ezek. 31: 3—18). This view of the matter makes the mention of Assyria in this connexion altogether natural, as if he had said, of the truth of these predictions against Babylon a proof has been afforded in the execution of the threatenings against Assyria. The only objection to it is that the next verse goes on to speak of the Assyrian overthrow, which would seem to imply that the last clause of this verse, as well as the first, relates to that event. Another method of expounding the verse therefore is to apply jwrr and nipn to the same events, but in a somewhat different sense—’ As I intended it has come to pass, and as I purposed it shall continue.’ The Assyrian power is already broken, and shall never be restored. This strict interpretation of the preterite does not necessarily imply that the prophecy was actually uttered after the destruction of Sennacherib’s army. Such would indeed be the natural inference from this verse alone, but for reasons which will be explained below, it is more probable that the Prophet merely takes his stand in vision at a point of time between the two events of which he speaks, so that both verbs are really prophetic, the one of a remote the other of a proximate futurity, but for that very reason their distinctive forms should be retained and recognized. Yet the only modern writers who appear to do so in translation are Calvin and Cocceius, who havefactum est} and J. D. Michaelis, who has ist geschehen. The acute and learned but superficial Clericus jumps to the conclusion that this verse begins an entirely new prophecy, a dictum eagerly adopted by the modern German critics, who are always predisposed to favour new views of the connexion and arrangement of the text. Rosenmuller represents these verses as a fragment of a larger ’ poem’ on the Assyrian overthrow. Gesenius confidently sets it down as the conclusion or continuation of the tenth chapter, with which it exhibits several verbal coincidences. Hendewerk, with still more precision, gives it place between vs. 27 and 28 of that chapter. Hitzig and Knobel put it after the twefth chapter and regard it as a prophecy of later date, but having direct reference to that in ch. 10-12. Ewald assigns it the same relative position, but interpolates the last three verses of the seventeenth chapter and the whole of the eighteenth between the twelfth or rather the eleventh (for he looks upon the twelfth as spurious) and the paragraph before us, which he takes to be the winding up of the whole prophecy. The first thing that will strike the reader in this statement is the principle assumed by all the hypotheses, viz. that similar passages must belong together, which is tantamount to saying that whatever a writer had to say upon a certain point or in a certain manner he must have said once for all in a single and continuous composition. On the same ground all those passages in the odes of Horace which contain the praises of Augustus or Maecenas, might be brought together into a cento of endless repetitions. To an ordinary reader it is scarcely more surprising that an author should use the same expressions in two different productions, than that he should repeat them in the same. But even if the principle assumed were less unreasonable than it is, the different and inconsistent ways in which it is applied, and the assurance with which each new-comer puts his predecessors in the wrong, will satisfy most readers that conjectures which admit of being varied and multiplied ad libitum must needs be worthless. This conclusion is confirmed by the existence of a strong and very obvious motive, on the part of neological interpreters, for severing this paragraph, if possible, from v hat precedes. The resemblance of these verses to the undisputed writings of Isaiah is too strong to leave a doubt as to their origin. If left then in connexion with the previous context, they establish the antiquity and authenticity of this astonishing prediction against Babylon, beyond the reach of cavil. And if this be admitted, we have here a signal instance of prophetic foresight exercised at least two centuries before the event. This conclusion must be avoided at all costs and hazards, and the sacrifice of taste and even common sense is nothing in comparison with such an object. A remote design of this kind may frequently be traced in critical decisions, which to superficial observation or to blinded admiration, seem to be determined solely by the unbiassed application of universal laws. In the case before us, the unsoundness of the principle, its arbitrary application, and the evident appearances of sinister design, all conspire to recommend the old view of the passage, as immediately connected with the previous context, which is further recommended by the uniform authority of Hebrew manuscripts, a constant tradition, the grammatical construction, and the perfectly coherent and appropriate sense which it puts upon the passage. It need scarcely be added that the explanation of the name Assyria, by Lowth and others, as denoting or at least including the Babylonian dynasty, is here entirely untenable, because it is unnecessary. Where the proper meaning of the term is so appropriate, it is worse than useless to assume one which at least is rare and dubious.
25. He now declares what the purpose F, which is so certainly to be accomplished, namely God’s determination to break Assyria (or the Assyrian) in my land, and on my mountains I will trample him; and his yoke shall depart from off them, and his burden from off his lack (or shoulder) shall depart. The infinitive depends upon ^san in the verse preceding, and is followed by a finite verb, as in many other cases. (See for example ch. 5: 24). Barnes continues the infinitive construction in the next clause (to remove etc.), while Gesenius, on the other hand, assimilates the first clause to the second (.Assyria is broken etc.), both which are gratuitous departures from the form of the original. Forced constructions of the clause are given by Junius (when by breaking Assyria etc. I shall have tram pled on him, then shall his yoke etc.) and by Gataker (as by breaking Assyria etc. I trampled on him, so that his yoke and burden were removed, in like manner Babylon shall be destroyed). Hendewerk makes a frivolous objection to the translation of Tnrx by Assyria, viz. that Assyria never was in Palestine. The use of the names of countries to denote their governments and even their armies is sufficiently familiar, even without supposing “iiurx to be really the name of the progenitor, like Israel and Canaan. My mountains some have understood to be Mount Zion, others more generally the mountains of Jerusalem; but it seems to be rather a description of the whole land of Israel, or at least of Judah, as a mountainous region. (See Ezek. 38: 21. 39: 2, 4. Zech. 12: 15. 1 Kings 10: 23.) Calvin’s idea that this term is used because the country was despised as a mere range of mountains, seems extremely forced. Umbreit, however, also understands the words in my land as an allusion to the contempt of foreigners for Pales tine. The expressions of this verse bear a strong resemblance to those of ch. 9: 3. 10: 27. 30: 30, 31. 31: 8. Aben Ezra refers the plural suffix in ern^s to land and mountains, Grotius to the latter only; but the true construction is no doubt the common one, which refers it to the people of Israel collectively, and the suffix in lES’i: to the same people as an individual. The place here assigned to the destruction of Assyria sufficiently refutes the application of the name for Babylonia by Calvin, Lowth, and others. Gill thinks that “ the Assyrian here may represent the Turks, who now possess the land of Israel, and shall be destroyed.” Cocceius under stands by Assyria the Turks and Saracens, and by the mountains the once Christian regions which they have usurped, in Armenia, Mesopotamia, Asia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, Africa, Greece, Thrace, Illyria, Hungary. (Hi sane sunt montes Dei et terra ipsius atque ecclesiae suspicio igitur est prophetiam hanc loqui de hisce, qui nunc Assyria nominari possunt.)
26. The Prophet now explains his previous conjunction of events so remote as the Assyrian overthrow and the fall of Babylon, by declaring both to be partial executions of one general decree against all hostile and opposing powers. This is the purpose that is purposed upon all the earth, and this the hand that is stretched out over all the nations. On the supposition that this relates to Babylon alone, or to Assyria alone, we are obliged to understand the whole earth and all nations as describing the universal sway of these great powers respectively. Henderson applies the terms to Assyria, with an indefinite reference to any other powers that might set themselves in opposition. The true interpretation of the words as comprehending Assyria and Babylon, with reference to what goes before, is given by Aben Ezra, Jarchi, and J. D. Michaelis. Aben Ezra seems indeed to make this the apodosis of the sentence, which is wholly unnecessary. Clericus regards the combination of the cognate noun and participle (purpose purposed) as emphatic and implying settled immutable determination. Vitringa explains purpose and hand as meaning wisdom and strength; Gill, more correctly, plan and execution. The outstretched hand, as Knobel observes, is a gesture of threatening. Hitzig gratuitously changes hand to arm, as in ch. 5: 25. All the earth is, with as little reason, changed to all lands by Gesenius and all the later Germans except Ewald.
27. As the preceding verse declares the extent of God’s avenging purpose, so this affirms the certainty of its execution, as a necessary consequence of his almighty power. For Jehovah of Hosts hath purposed (this), and who shall annul (his purpose)? And his hand (is) the (one) stretched out, and who shall turn it back!—Instead of Jehovah of Hosts, the Septuagint has here the Holy God or God the Holy One. *»S£ has been variously translated scatter (LXX), weaken (Vulgate), avert (Luther), dissolve (Calvin), change (J. D. Michaelis), hinder (Gesenius), break (Ewald); but its true sense is that given in the English Version (disannul) and by De Wette (vereiteln). The meaning of the last clause is not simply that his hand is stretched out, as most writers give it, but that the hand stretched out is his, as appears from the article prefixed to the participle miaa. (See Gesenius $ 108. 3. Ewald $ 560). The true construction is given by Cocceius, Lowth, Maurer, Henderson, Knobel, and Ewald (seine Hand ist die ausgereckte). Hitzig’s attempt to strengthen the last ve”rb by rendering it frighten back (zuriickschrecken) has the opposite effect. Ewald’s translation (hemmen) also fails to convey the exact sense of the Hebrew verb, which is correctly given in the Vulgate (avertet), and still more precisely by Cocceius (retroaget). Clericus modernizes the construction of the whole verse (cum consilium ceperit etc.), and Gesenius that of the second clause (ist seine Hand gestreckt u.s. w.). Here again Gill is felicitous in paraphrase. c There’s nothing comes to pass but he has purposed, and every thing he has purposed does come to pass.’
28. In the year of the death of king Ahaz, was this burden, or threatening prophecy, against Philistia. Junius begins the fifteenth chapter here, and Calvin says it would have begun here, but for the preposterous division or rather laceration of the chapters. Jerome notes this as the first prophecy belonging to the reign of Hezekiah, and J. H. Michaelis accord ingly makes this the beginning of the fourth division of the book. According to Cocceius’s arrangement, it is the beginning of the seventh part, extending to the twentieth chapter, and distinguished by the fourfold recurrence of the title wti-q, as to the sense of which vide supra, ch. 13: I. Gesenius, Hendewerk, and Henderson, suppose the words of this verse to refer to a period anterior to the death of Ahaz, Maurer to a period after it. J. D. Michaelis thinks that the title at least was written afterwards. Hitzig and Knobel regard the title as the work of a compiler, and the former supposes the entire passage to have been reduced to writing long after the alleged date of the prophecy, while Knobel throws the whole back to the year 739, near the beginning of the reign of Ahaz. These are mere conjectures, which can have no weight against a title forming part of the text as far as we can trace it back. One manuscript instead of Ahaz has Uzziah, a mere emendation intended to remove a supposed chronological difficulty. Henderson points out an erroneous division of the text in some editions of the English Bible, by prefixing the paragraph mark to v. 29, so as to apply the date here given to what goes before, whereas the dates are always placed at the beginning. Augusti’s translation of the second clause (the threatening prophecy was this) mistakes the form of the original, which can only mean this threatening prophecy.
29. Rejoice not, O Philistia, allofthee (or all Philistia), because the rod that smote thee is broken, for out of the root of the serpent shall come forth a basilisk, and its root a flying fiery serpent. The name nabs is applied in Hebrew to the southwestern part of Canaan on the Mediterranean coast, nominally belonging to the tribe of Judah, but for ages occupied by the D^nuba or Philistines, a race of Egyptian origin who came to Canaan from Caphtor, i. e. according to the ancients Cappadocia, but according to the moderns either Cyprus or Crete, most probably the latter. The name is now traced to an Ethiopic root meaning to wander, and probably denotes wanderers or emigrants. Hence it is commonly rendered in the Septuagint aMcpvl.oi. The Philistines are spoken of above in ch. 9: 11. 11: 14, and throughout the historical books of the Old Testament, as the hereditary enemies of Israel. They were subdued by David (2 Sam. 5: 17-25. 21: 15), and still paid tribute in the reign of Jehoshaphat (2 Chron. 17: 11), but rebelled against Jehoram (2 Chr. 21: 16, 17), were again subdued by Uzziah (2 Chr. 26: 6), and again shook off the yoke in the reign of Ahaz (2 Chr. 28: 18). The Greek name Ilulatarivy, a corruption of PIU^B, is applied by Josephus and other ancient writers to the whole land of Is- 296 rael, from which comes our Palestine, employed in the same manner The expression T^s is explained by Lowth to mean with one consent, while Henderson connects it with the negative in this sense, let not any part of thee. Most writers make it simply mean the whole of thee. perhaps with reference to Philistia as a union of several principalities. All interpreters agree that the Philistines are here spoken of as having recently escaped from the ascendency of some superior power, but at the same time threatened with a more complete subjection. The first of these ideas is expressed by the figure of a broken rod or staff, for the meaning of which vide supra ad v. 5. The other is expressed by the very different figure of an ordinary serpent producing or succeeded by other varieties more venomous and deadly. On the natural history of the passage, see the Hebrew Lexicons, Bochart’s Hierozoicon, and Rosenmiiller’s Alterthumskunde. Whatever be the particular species intended, the essential idea is the same, and has never been disputed. Some indeed suppose a gradation or climax in the third term also, the fiery flying serpent being supposed to be more deadly than the basilisk, as this is more so than the ordinary serpent. But most writers refer the suffix in “p-iB to tuns, and regard the other two names as correlative or parallel. The transition in the last clause from the figure of an animal to that of a plant may serve the double purpose of reminding us that what we read is figurative, and of showing how unsafe it is to tamper with the text on the ground of mere rhetorical punctilios. As to the application of the figures, there are several different opinions. Jerome and a long line of interpreters, including Hendewerk, sup pose the broken staff to be the death of Ahaz. But he, so far from having smitten the Philistines, had been smitten by them. Kimchi, Abarbenel, Vitringa, and others understand the first clause as referring to the death of Uzziah. But this had taken place more than thirty years before. Vitringa endeavours to remove this difficulty by supposing an ellipsis: rejoice not in the death of him who smote you, and in the prosperity which you have since enjoyed for many years. But this is wholly arbitrary. Others suppose Tiglath-pileser to be meant by the rod which smote them; but for this there is no sufficient ground in history. Gesenius applies the figures not to an individual but to the Jewish power, which had been broken and reduced during the reign of Ahaz. The still more formidable domination threatened in the last clause he explains, not with the older writers to be that of Hezekiah (2 Kings 18: 18), but the recovered strength of Judah. Hitzig and Ewald make the last clause a prediction of Assyrian invasion. Knobel adopts the same interpretation, but with this addition, that he understands the figure of the basilisk coming forth from the serpent as referring to the agency of Judah in procuring the Assyrian invasion of Philistia. Rosenmuller refers this clause to the Messiah, in which he follows the Chaldee paraphrase. < From among the sons of the sons of Jesse, the Messiah shall come forth, and his works shall be among you as fiery serpents.’ Some of the old writers suppose wns to contain an allusion to one of the names of Jesse (2 Sam. 17: 25).
30. And the first-born of the poor shall feed, and the needy in security lie down, and I will kill thy root with famine, and thy remnant it shall slay. The future condition of the Jews is here contrasted with that of the Philistines. The figures in the first clause are borrowed from a flock, in the second from a tree, but with obvious allusion to a human subject. The first-born of the poor is explained by the Targum and the Rabbins to mean the nobles of Judah, now despised by the Philistines. Calvin makes it a superlative expression for the poorest and most wretched (quasi suis miseriis insignes), and this sense is approved by most of the later writers, some of whom refer to Job 18: 13 for an analogous expression. Gesenius, however, is disposed to admit an allusion to the next generation, which would make the promise too remote, and leaves the expression first-born unexplained. Some writers needlessly amend the text. Thus J. D. Michaelis makes the 2 in •’isa a preposition and reads in my pastures, a conjecture recently re newed by Ewald, who would point the word ^ba and make *o a synonyme of “o. But an exposition which involves a change of text and the invention of a word to suit the place, and both without necessity, seems to have a twofold claim to be rejected. Equally gratuitous is Lowth’s reading ^23, my choice first-fruits. Gesenius and De Wette supply rra:& in the first clause from the second, shall feed quietly. But the threat of famine in the other clause seems to show that the prominent idea is abundance, as expressed by the older writers. There is no need of taking root in the sense of stock or race. The figurative part of the last clause is borrowed from a tree, here divided into two parts, the root and the rest or remainder. Gesenius distinguishes between m^n and;nn as terms which usage has appropriated to the act of God and man respectively. Hitzig makes the one mean kill in general, and the other more specifically kill with the sword (Jer. 15: 3). The third person JHJT1 is by some regarded as a mere enallage personae, and referred like ^rran to God himself. Others refer it to the enemy mentioned in v. 31, or the fiery serpent in v. 30. Others prefer an indefinite construction, which is very common, and would here be entitled to the preference, were there not another still more simple. This makes 2S”i the subject of the last verb, so that what is first mentioned as an instrument in God’s hand, reappears in the last member of the sentence as an agent.
31. Howl, oh gate! cry, oh city! dissolved, oh Philistia, is the whole of thee; for out of the north a smoke comes, and there is no straggler in his forces. The Philistines are not only forbidden to rejoice, but exhorted to lament. The object of address is a single city representing all the rest. There is no ground for the opinion that Ashdod is particularly meant. It is rather a case of poetical individualization. Gate is not here put for the judges or nobles who were wont to sit there—nor is it even mentioned as the chief place of concourse—but rather with allusion to the defences of the city, as a parallel expression to city itself. The insertion of a preposition by the Targum and Kimchi—howl for the gate, cry for the city—is entirely unauthorized, and changes the whole meaning. The masculine form aittj seems to have greatly perplexed interpreters. Some of the older writers supply Erx, others £2, and even Ewald says that we must be content to make it an infinitive. Knobel regards it as a mere anomaly or idiomatic license of construction. Hitzig supposes a sudden transition from the third to the second person—it is dissolved, oh whole Philistia. The true solution Is that iriaa agrees regularly with Vs in “Ibs. This explanation, which Hendewerk admits to be as old as Maurer, is distinctly given by Cocceius (liquefactum est, Palaestina, universum tui), and copied by Vitringa and J. H. Michaelis. Another idea ascribed to Maurer by Knobel—viz. that the smoke here meant is that of conflagrations kindled by the enemy—is at least as old as Clericus. Some of the older writers understood it simply as an emblem for wrath or trouble. Lowth cites Virgil’s fumantes pulvere campos, and supposes an allusion to the clouds of dust raised by an army on the march. This is adopted by Gesenius, Rosenmiiller, Hendewerk, and others; but Hitzig and Knobel object to this interpretation of “,ias, as unauthorized by Hebrew usage. Hitzig refers it to the practice of literally carrying fire in front of caravans to mark the course; but this is objected to by others as peculiar to the desert and to straggling or divided bodies. It may be doubt ed, notwithstanding the allusion in the last clause, whether y^s was intended to refer to an army at all. If not, we may suppose with Calvin that smoke is mentioned merely as a sign of distant and approaching fire, a natural and common metaphor for any powerful destroying agent.—^H”‘3 has been conjecturally explained in various ways, but is agreed by all the modern writers to mean properly alone or separated, and to be descriptive of the enemy with which Philistia is here threatened. Some give to •pisia the sense of the cognate fiiiS’iB, viz. appointed times, and understand it as referring to the orders under which the invading army acts. Most writers now, however, give it another sense of D^isia, viz. assemblies, here applied specifically to an army. Thus understood, the clause is descriptive of a compact, disciplined, and energetic host. A similar description we have had already in ch. 5: 26—29, from which resemblance some infer that this passage must relate to the As syrians. Aben Ezra refers it to the Babylonians under Nebuchadnezzar, Kimchi to the Jews under Hezekiah,and Cocceius to the Romans as the final conquerors of whole Palestina, by which he understands the whole of what we now call Palestine, or at least Judea. Vitringa, who usually quotes the strangest notions of Cocceius with indulgent deference, appears to lose his patience at this point, and exclaims, ’ hanc ego interpretationem totam suo relinquam loco, nee ejus amplius rneminero; est enim plane paradoxa et a communi sensu aliena.’ The diversity of judgments as to the particular enemy here meant, and the slightness of the grounds on which they severally rest, may suffice to show that the prophecy is really generic, not specific, and includes all the agencies and means by which the Philistines were punished for their constant and inveterate enmity to the chosen people, as well as for idolatry and other crimes.
32. And what shall one answer (what answer shall be given to) the ambassadors of a nation 1 That Jehovah has founded Zion, and in it the afflicted of his people shall seek refuge. The meaning of the last clause is too clear to be disputed, viz. that God is the protector of his people. This is evidently stated as the result and sum of the whole prophecy, and as such is sufficiently intelligible. It is also given, however, as an answer to ambassadors or messengers, and this has given rise to a great diversity of explanations. Instead of ambassadors (^xVa) kings (*-^~) is given by all the old Greek versions except Symmachus who has a^’lotg. The older writers for the most part make ambassadors the subject of the verb—what will the ambassadors answer 1 Thus understood the words have been applied to the report carried back by the ambassadors of friendly powers, or by those sent out by the Jews themselves, on the occasion of Hezekiah’s victory over the Philistines, or of his delivery from the Assyrian invasion. In order to avoid the irregularity of giving ii’a a plural meaning, some have supposed the sentence to relate to the report carried back by a Philistine embassy, sent to ascertain the condition of Jerusalem after the Assyrian attack. The irregular concord of the plural noun with “oxb^ was explained by supplying a distributive pronoun, every one of the ambassadors, a form of speech quite foreign to the Hebrew language. Hendewerk, who retains this old construction, understands this as the answer of the Assyrian ambassadors, when asked by the Philistines to attack Jerusalem. It is now commonly agreed, however, that ^ •’sxba is the object of the verb, which is repeatedly con strued with a noun directly, and that its subject is either Hezekiah or more probably indefinite. As to -Ha, some still give it a collective meaning; others refer it to the Philistines, suing for peace, or proposing a joint resistance to Assyria; others to Judah itself, an application contrary to usage. All this seems to show that the expression is indefinite, as the very absence of the article implies, and that the whole sense meant to be conveyed is this, that such may be the answer given to the inquiries made from any quarter. Of all the specific applications, the most probable is that which supposes an allusion to Rabshakeh’s argument with Hezekiah against trusting in Jehovah. But this seems precluded by the want of any natural connexion with Philistia, which is the subject of the previous context. I shall only add, that Cocceius is not only true to his original hypothesis, but so far carried away by it as to lay aside his usual grammatical precision (which often contrasts strangely with his exegesis) and translate ns^ as a preterite. He understands the verse as accounting for the ruin of the Jews by the reception which they give to the apostles of Christ. What answer was given to the messengers of the nation (i. e. the messengers sent to them) when Jehovah founded Zion (or the Christian church) and the afflicted of his people sought refuge in it? The same sense might have been as well attained without departing from the strict sense of the future. As to the sense itself, it needs no comment to evince that it is purely arbitrary, and that a hundred other meanings might be just as well imposed upon the words.
