THESE chapters contain a prediction of the downfall of Moab. Most of the recent German writers deny that any part of it was written by Isaiah, except the last two verses of ch. XVI, which they suppose him to have added as a postscript to an older prophecy. The reasons for ascribing the remainder of the passage to another writer are derived from minute peculiarities of phraseology, and from the general character and tone of the whole composition. Hitzig regards this as the prophecy of Jonah mentioned in,2 Kings 14: 25. In this conclusion Maurer acquiesces, and Knobel thinks it not improbable. The grounds on which such hypotheses must be rejected, when not only destitute of external evidence but contradicted by it, have been already stated in the general introduction. Hendewerk combats Hitzig’s doctrine on his own ground and with his own wea pons, deducing from the verbal minutiae of the passage proofs of its poetical excellence and of its genuineness. Some of the older writers regard the last two verses of ch. XVI as an addition made by Isaiah to an earlier prediction of his own. Henderson thinks them an addition made to a prophecy of Isaiah by a later prophet. If we set aside the alleged internal evidence of a different origin, the simplest view of the passage is that which regards the whole as a continuous composition, and supposes the Prophet at the close to fix the date of the prediction which he had just uttered. The particular event referred to in these chapters has been variously explained to be the invasion of Moab by Jeroboam II. king of Israel, by Tirhaka king of Ethiopia, by Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria, by his successors Shalmaneser, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, by Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon etc. The safest conclusion seems to be, that the prediction is generic and intended to describe the destruction of Moab, without exclusive reference to any one of the events by which it was occasioned or promoted, but with special allusions possibly to all of them. Compare the introduction to ch. XIII—XIV. According to Cocceius, the Moab of this prophecy is Israel, the hostile power Rome, and the time that of the downfall of Jerusalem. To such hypotheses the answer still is, that they might be indefinitely multiplied and varied, with as much or rather with as little reason.
THIS chapter is occupied with a description of the general grief, occasioned by the conquest of the chief towns and the desolation of the country at large. Its chief peculiarities of form are the numerous names of places introduced, and the strong personification by which they are represented as grieving for the public calamity. The chapter closes with an intimation of still greater evils.
1. (This is) the burden of Moab, that in a night Ar-Moab is laid waste, is destroyed; that in a night Kir-Moab is laid waste, is destroyed. The English Version, Rosenmiiller, and Hitzig, understand the first verse as assigning a reason for the second. Because in a night etc. he ascends etc. But so long a sentence is at variance, not only with the general usage of the language, but with the style of this particular prophecy. Gesenius supposes an ellipsis at the beginning, and takes n3 in its usu^l sense of that. ‘ (I affirm) that etc.’ The same construction occurs where a verb of swearing is understood (7: 9. 49: 18.) In the absence of the governing verb, the particle may be translated surely. Most of the recent German versions render it by yea (ja!). In a night may be literally understood, as assaults are often made by night (ch. 21: 4), or figuratively, as the phrase is sometimes used to denote sudden destruction. Ar originally meant a city, and Ar-Moab the city of Moab, i. e. the capital city, or as Gesenius says the only real city of the Moabites. It was on the south side of the Arnon (Num. 22: 36). The Greeks called it Areopolis or City of Mars, accord ing to their favourite practice of corrupting foreign names so as to give them the appearance of significant Greek words. Ptolemy calls it Rhabmathmom, a corruption of the Hebrew Rabbath-Moab i. e. chief city of Moab. Jerome says that the place was destroyed in one night by an earthquake when he was a boy. The Arabs call it Mab and Errabba. It is now in ruins. In connexion with the capital city, the Prophet names the principal or only fortress in the land of Moab. Kir originally means a wall, then a walled town or fortress. The place here meant is a few miles south-east of Ar, on a rocky hill, strongly fortified by nature, and provided with a castle. The Chaldee Paraphrase of this verse calls it Kerakka de Moab, the fortress of Moab, which name it has retained among the orientals who extend it to the whole of ancient Moab.
2. The destruction of the chief cities causes general grief. They (indefinitely) go up to the house (i. e. the temple), and Dibon (/!o) the high places for (the purpose of) weeping. On Nebo and on Medeba, Moab howls—on all his heads baldness—every beard cut off. Luther, Gesenius, and others, make the verb indefinite. Lowth, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and Maurer, regard Moab as the subject. Vitringa makes n?a a contracted proper name for Bethmeon (Jer. 48: 23) or Beth-baal-meon (Josh. 13: 19), on the south side of the Arnon, now called Maein. Ewald makes it a con traction of oir&si rvs (Jer. 48: 22), which was not far from Dibon (Num. 33: 46). The same explanation was once approved by Rosenmiiller, but in the Compendium of his Scholia, he adopts the opinion of Kimchi, that n^n is here used in the sense of temple, and is equivalent to unpa which occurs below (16: 12) as a parallel to mas. The ancient heathen built their temples upon heights (ch. 65: 7). Solomon built one to the Moabitish god Chemosh on the mountain before Jerusalem (1 Kings 11: 1). This explanation is approved by Gesenius and all the later Germans except Ewald. Some who take ros as a proper name, make mas one also, regarding it as a contracted form of Bamoth-baal (Josh. 13: 17). Dibon, a town north of the Arnon, rebuilt by the tribe of Gad, and thence called Dibon-gad (Num. 33: 45), although it had formerly belonged to Moab, and would seem from this passage to have been recovered by them. The same place is called Dimon in v. 9, in order to assimilate it to d*r blood. The modern name is Diban. There is no preposition before rPS and ya^ in.Hebrew. Hence the latter may be taken either as the object or the subject of the verb. The first construction is preferred by the older writers; those of modern date are almost unanimous in favour of the other, which makes Dibon itself go up to the high places. The only objection is that the writer would hardly have coupled this one place with the country at large, and this is not sufficient to exclude it. The objection to the other is that Dibon was situated in a plain, to which it may be answered that the phrase go up has reference in many cases not to geographical position but to sacredness and dignity.
3. In its streets, they are girded with sackcloth; on its roofs and in its squares (or broad places) all (literally, all of it) howls, coming down with weeping (from the house-tops or the temples). In this verse there is a singular alternation of masculine and feminine suffixes, all relating to Moab, sometimes considered as a country and sometimes as a nation. The last clause is explained by most modern writers, to mean melting into tears, as the eye is elsewhere said to run down tears or water (Jer. 9: 17. Lam. 3: 48). But as the eye is not here mentioned, and the preposition is in serted, making a marked difference between this and the alleged expressions, it is better to adhere to the old construction which supposes an antithesis between this clause and the ascent to the temples or the house-tops. Sack cloth is mentioned as the usual mourning dress and badge of deep humiliation.
4. And Heshbon cries and Elealeh—even to Jahaz is their voice heard—therefore the warriors of Moab cry—his soul is distressed to him (or in him). Heshbon, a royal city of the Amorites, assigned to Reuben and to Gad at different times, or to both jointly, famous for its fish-pools, a celebrated town in the days of Eusebius, the ruins of which are still in existence under the slightly altered name of Hesbdn. Elealeh, often mentioned with it, was also assigned to the tribe of Reuben. Eusebius describes these towns as near together in the highlands of Gilead, opposite to Jericho. Robinson and Smith, while at the latter place, conversed with an Arab chief, who pointed out to them the Wady Hesban, near which far up in the mountain is the ruined place of the same name, the ancient Heshbon. Half an hour north-east of this lies another ruin called El Al, the ancient Elealeh. (Palestine II. 278.) The names yn? and nsrn are treated by Gesenius as identical, but Hitzig understands them to denote two different places, one described by Jerome as overhanging the Dead Sea, the other further to the south-east on the edge of the desert, the scene of the battle between Sihon and Israel. In either case, the preposition seems to imply that the place meant was a frontier town. The same form of expression that is here used occurs also ch. 10: 30.—Vitringa and Gesenius give b,s-^ the rare and doubtful sense because, and understand the Prophet to describe the cities or people in general as lamenting because even the warriors were dis mayed. Most writers give the words their usual meaning, and suppose the terror of the warriors to be here described as the effect not the cause of the general lamentation. According to Knobel, therefore has reference to the cry of Heshbon and Elealeh which had just been mentioned; according to Hitzig and others, to the downfall of the capital (v. 1). For ^atbn the Septuagint seems to have read •’sbti, which it renders i] oayvg. This read ing and translation, which is also favoured by the Peshito, is adopted by Lowth: the very loins of Moab cry out. Other interpreters agree that it is the passive participle of f^n, used as a noun in the sense of warriors or heroes, whether so called because drawn out for military service, or as being strong, or girded and equipped, or disencumbered of unnecessary clothing. Aquila has Qwpot, with the arms or shoulders bare. There is peculiar significance in thus ascribing an unmanly terror to the very defenders of the country. Vitringa supposes an additional emphasis in the use of the verb W”^, which may either mean a joyful or a mournful cry, and by itself might here denote a battle-cry or war-shout. As if he had said, the warriors of Moab raise a cry, not of battle or defiance, but of grief and terror. The same natural expression of distress is ascribed by Homer to his heroes. (Vide infra, ch. 33: 7.)—Cocceius is singular in making this an exhortation: let them raise the war-cry (vociferentur, classicum canant, barritum faciant, clamorem tollant, ut in praelio). For ns-p the Septuagint reads rw (yvw- (7£T«/), probably a mere inadvertence. The English Version and Lowth take U5S5 in the sense of life, other interpreters in that of soul. Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Ewald, give tons-n the sense of trembling, from a kindred root in Arabic; others with more probability that of being evil, i. e. ill at ease or suffering, in which the future corresponding to this preterite is frequently used elsewhere. Gesenius indeed refers that future to another root, but one of kindred origin, in which the essential idea is probably the same. The paronomasia in IS^-P and n^-P is copied in Gesenius’s trans lation by combining the words Jclagen and verzaget. The similar terms are confounded by the Vulgate (ululabit sibi), and by Calvin, who under stands the sense to be, that every one will be so occupied with his own grief as to disregard that of his neighbours.
5. My heart for Moab cries out—her fugitives (are fled) as far as Zoar—an heifer of three years old—for he that goes up Luhith with weep ing goes up by it—for in the way of Horonaim a cry of destruction they lift up. Every part of this obscure verse has given rise to some diversity of exposition. It has been made a question whose words it contains. Junius connects it with the close of the preceding verse and understands it to con tain the words of the warriors there mentioned, endeavouring to rally and recall the fugitives. Others suppose the Moabites in general, or some individual among them, to be here the speaker. Cocceius doubts whether these are not the words of God himself. Calvin supposes the Prophet to be speaking in the person and expressing the feelings of a Moabite. All these hypotheses appear to have arisen from an idea that the Prophet cannot be supposed to express sympathy with these sinners of the gentiles. But such expressions are not only common elsewhere, but particularly frequent in this ^art of Isaiah. (Vide infra ch. 16: 11. 21: 3, 4. 22: 5.) Hitzig suggests, as a possible but not as a probable construction of the first words, My heart (is) towards Moab (who) is crying etc.. as in Judges 5: 9. Some older writers understand the words to mean my heart cries to Moab, as in 1 Chron. 5: 20. Gesenius gratuitously cites other cases in which b has the sense of for, on account of, given to it here by Aben Ezra (IKIE *m3D). The particle is here used in its proper sense as indicating general relation, as to, with respect to, and simply points out Moab as the subject or occasion of the cry. Ewald and others make psf mean to complain or lament, which is neither so exact nor so expressive as the literal translation.—Instead of my heart some read his heart, others simply heart. Thus Lowth: the heart of Moab crieth in her, after the Septuagint (w avrfi). The Peshito seems to have read irima in his spirit. The common text itself is variously explained. According to the usual analogy, it means her bars, and the Vulgate accordingly has vectes ejus. By this some understand the cities of Moab, others its barriers or frontier posts, others its guardians or protectors- Most of the modern writers follow Saadias and Kimchi, who explain the word to mean her fugitives. The only objection to this explanation is the absence of the long vowel under the first letter.—Zoar, one of the cities of the plain, preserved by Lot’s intercession, is now ascertained to have been situated on the eastern shore of the Dead Sea, at the foot of the mountains near its southern extremity. (Robinson’s Palestine II. 480, 648.) It is here mentioned as an extreme southern point, but not without allusion, as Vitringa with great probability suggests, to Lot’s escape from the destruction of Sodom.—The next phrase (mtt&ia n^s?) is famous as the subject of discordant explanations. These may however be reduced to two classes, those which regard the words as proper names, and those which regard them as appellatives. J. D. Michaelis supposes two places to be mentioned, Eglath and Shelishiyyah; but of the latter there is no trace in geography or history. Doederlein conjectures that the city Eglath con sisted of three towns, and that the Hebrew rtjizfttt) is the same as the Greek TQinohs or triple city. But the former nowhere else means threefold, but always third. According to Lightfoot, the phrase means Eglah, or Eglath the Third, so called to distinguish it from Eglaim or En-eglaim, a place in the same region, mentioned in Ezek. 47: 10, “ where Eglaim is plainly of the dual number and seems to intimate that there were two Egels, with relation to which our Eglah may be called Eglah the third.” (Lightfoot’s Chorographical Inquiry, ch. 3, § 8.) With this may be compared Ramathaim 20
which is also dual (1 Sam. 1: 2) and Upper and Nether Beth-horon (Josh. 16: 3, 5). Lightfoot compares this Eglah the Third with the A7«da of Ptolemy, and the “AyvCk”ku. of Josephus, both mentioned in connexion with Zoar (ZwaQa) and the latter with Horonaim (ffyowfu)* The Ejlun (,j JL=£) of Abulfeda, meaning calves or heifers, may be another name for the same place, which must then have been situated beyond the northern boundary of Moab, and be mentioned here in order to convey the idea that the fugitives had fled in opposite directions. Of the late translators, DeWette, Henderson and Ewald retain the Hebrew words as a proper name, Eglath- Shelishiyah. On the other hand, all the ancient versions, and the great majority of modern writers, regard the words in question as appellatives, and all agree in rendering the first of the two heifer. The other is explained by Jarchi to mean the third in the order of birth, with reference to some supposed superiority in that class. Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Umbreit, under stand it to mean third-rate, of the third order, i. e. inferior (compare Dan. 5: 29. 1 Sam. 15: 9), and as here applied to a heifer, lean, ill-favoured, a figure borrowed from the pastoral habits of the people in that region to express the smallness of the city Zoar, which was so called because it was a little one (Gen. 19: 20, 22). It is plain however that third can have this meaning only in case of a direct comparison with something of the first and second rank. Besides, what has the size of Zoar to do with this pathetic description of the flight of Moab? The great majority of voices is in favour of the meaning three years old, or retaining the form of the original more closely, a heifer of the third (year). A cognate participle (n&&tt5») is used in this sense and in connexion with this very noun (Gen. 15: 9). By a heifer three years old, Gesenius understands one that has never yet been tamed or broken, according to Pliny’s maxim, domitura bourn in trimatu, postea sera, antea praematura. Now as personal afflictions are sometimes likened to the taming of animals (Jer. 31: 18. Hos. 10: 11), and as communities and governments are often represented by the figure of a heifer (Jer. 46: 20. 50: 11. Hos. 4: 16), the expressions thus interpreted would not be inappropriate to the state of Moab, hitherto flourishing and uncontrolled, but now three years old and subjected to the yoke. Some of the older interpreters suppose this statement of the age to have reference to the voice of the animal, which is said by Bochart to be deepest at that age, and according to Aristotle, stronger in the female than the male. There is still a doubt, however, with respect to the application of the simile, as last explained. Bochart refers it to the Prophet himself. ‘ My heart cries for Moab (for her fugitives to Zoar) as a heifer three years old.’ Vitringa refers it to the fugitives of Moab, who escape to Zoar, crying like a heifer three years old.—fibsa is commonly a noun denoting an ascent or rising ground. It is translated hill in the English version of 1 Sam. 9: 11, and ascent in that of Num. 34: 4 and 2 Sam. 15: 30, which last place is strikingly analogous to this. The construction commonly adopted makes nbsn an absolute nominative: ‘ the ascent of Luhith (or as to the ascent of Luhith) with weeping one ascends it.’ It is possible however to make nbsB a participle or a participial noun—’ the ascender of Luhith (i. e. he who ascends it) with weeping ascends by it.’ The parallel passage (Jer. 48: 5) instead of ^ repeats *33. This is regarded by the latest writers as an error in transcription of ^33 for 13 13. The Septuagint has TIQO$ as ava- PfoovTcu, which implies still another reading (-53). It is a curious and instructive fact that J. D. Michaelis corrects the text of Isaiah by comparison with Jeremiah, while Lowth, with equal confidence, inverts the process and declares the text in Jeremiah to be unmeaning. Luhith is mentioned only here and in Jeremiah 48: 5. Eusebius describes it as a village still called.//om’#, between Areopolis and Zoar, which Jerome repeats but calls it Luitha. The article before rvmib is explained by Gesenius as having reference to the meaning of the name as an appellative, the boarded (town), but by Henderson with more probability as properly belonging to nbSB. (See Gesenius <§> 109, 1.) Horonaim is mentioned only here and in Jer. 48: 3,5, 34. The name originally means two caverns, and is near akin to Beth-horon, locuscavitatis (Gesenius Thes. I. 195, 459). As Jeremiah instead of Ifc^ way, has TIRE descent, it is not improbable that Luhith and Horonaim were on opposite faces of the same hill, so that the fugitives on their way to Zoar, after going up the ascent of Luhith, are seen going down the descent of Horonaim. A cry of breaking is explained by some of the rabbinical interpreters as meaning the explosive sound produced by clapping the hands or smiting the thigh. Others understand it to mean a cry of contrition, i. e. a penitent and humble cry. Gill suggests that it may mean a broken cry, i. e. one interrupted by sighs and sobs. Gesenius makes it mean a cry as of destruction, i. e. a loud and bitter cry; Knobel, a cry (on account) of destruction. It is possible however that “O1^. may be mentioned as the very word uttered, like san in other cases. The very unusual form iiss^ is by some regarded as a transposition for iwv from ss-i. But the rabbins and the latest writers are agreed that it is a derivative of ^ns. The former suppose an anomalous reduplication of the first radical. The latter regard it as a Pilpel for i-isnsn, either by error of transcription or euphonic change. (See Ewald § 237, 1.) There is no absurdity in the conjecture of Cocceius that this strange form was employed here in allusion to the names *\y and isHs, Moabitish cities. Junius supposes, still more boldly, that the Prophet wishing to say cry, instead of using any ordinary word, invented the cacophonous one now in question, as in keeping with the context and the feelings it expresses.
6. For the waters of Nimrim (are and) shall be desolations; for withered is the grass, gone is the herbage, verdure there is none. Accord-
ing to Vitringa, this verse gives a reason for the grief described in v. 5 as prevailing in the south of Moab. Maurer makes it an explanation of the flight in that direction. Hendewerk supposes the description to be here at an end, and a statement of the causes to begin. It seems more natural, however, to suppose, with Ewald and some older writers, that the description is itself continued, the desolation of the country being added to the capture of the cities and the flight of the inhabitants. Aurivillius, in his dissertation on this passage, explains n^naa as an appellative, meaning as in Arabic clear, limpid waters. But all other writers understand it as a proper name. Grotius takes IE in the sense of pastures, which it never has. Lightfoot suggests that the waters meant may be the hot springs of this region, mentioned by Josephus, and perhaps the same with those of which Moses speaks in Gen. 36: 24, according to the best interpretation of that passage. It is more probably explained by Junius as the name of streams which met there (rivorum ccnfluentium), and by others still more generally as denoting both the springs and running streams of that locality. Junius supplies a preposition before waters (ad aquas Nimrimorum desolationes erunt), but the true construction makes it the subject of the verb. The same writer understands the plural form as here used to denote the waters meeting at Nimrah or Beth-nimrah. But it is now agreed that Nimrim is another name for the town itself, which is mentioned in Num. 32: 3, 36 and Josh. 13: 27 as a town of Gad. Vitringa’s assumption of another town in the south of Moab rests on his misconception of the nexus between this verse and the fifth. Bochart derives the name from *i»3 a panther, but the true etymology is no doubt that already mentioned. Forerius explains sniatua as denoting an object of astonishment and horror, but the common sense of desolations is no doubt the true one. Most writers since Vitringa understand the Prophet as alluding to the practice of stopping fountains and wasting fields in war. (Compare 2 Kings 3: 19, 25.) But Ewald and others suppose an allusion to the effects of drought. This is a question which the Prophet’s own words leave undecided. The second ^3 is translated so that by Luther, and by the Septuagint, because by the Vulgate, yea by Augusti, while Calvin omits both. The translation of the first verb as a future and the others as preterites seems to make the desolation of the waters not the cause but the effect of the decay of vegetation. It is better, therefore, to adopt the present or descriptive form throughout the verse, as all the latest writers do. ^Sft is not hay, as Luther and the English Version give it, but mature grass, awn the springing herbage, p^ greenness or verdure in general. Ewald and Henderson neglect the distinction between the last two words. The whole is given with great precision in the Vulgate: herba, germen, viror. The Septuagint also has %OQTOS ylw^og.
7. Therefore (because the country can no longer be inhabited) the remainder of what (each) one has made (i.e. acquired), and their hoard (or store), over the brook ofjhe willows they carry them away. Not one of the ancient versions has given a coherent or intelligible rendering of this obscure sentence. Jerome suggests three different interpretations of DWS bfis; first, the brook of the Arabians or of the Ravens (n^n-i:?) who fed Elijah: then, the brook of the willows in the proper sense; and lastly, Babylon, the plains of which were full of willows (Ps. 137: 2). The first of these is adopted by J. D. Michaelis, who translates it Rabcnbach (Ravenbrook); the last by Bochart, Vitringa, and others; the second by most interpreters. A new interpretation is proposed by Hitzig, viz. brook or valley of the deserts, supposed to be the same with the brook or valley of the plain mentioned Amos 6: 14. It is now commonly agreed that whatever be the meaning of the name, it denotes the Wady el Ahsa of Burckhardt (the Wady el Ahsy of Robinson and Smith), running into the Dead Sea near its southern extremity, and forming the boundary between Kerek and Gebal, corresponding to the ancient Moab and Edom.—mrH may either mean what is left by the enemy, or the surplus of their ordinary gains. The & in an”^ is regarded by Henderson as the old termination of the verb. All other writers seem to look upon it as the suffix referring to Jrirv’ and fTipB, which are then to be construed as nominatives absolute. The older writers make the enemy the subject of the verb; the moderns the Moabites themselves. On the whole, the most probable meaning of the verse is that the Moabites shall carry what they can save of their possessions into the adjacent land of Edom.—Kimchi points out an ellipsis of the relative before nay, precisely similar to that in our colloquial English. Clericus coolly inserts not and enemies in the first,clause, both which he says are necessary to the sense.
8. The lamentation is not confined to any one part of the country. For the cry goes round the border of Moab (i. e. entirely surrounds it); even to Eglaim (is) its howling (heard), and to Beer Elim its howling. The meaning, as Hendewerk observes, is not that the land is externally surrounded by lamentation, but that lamentation fills it. Vatablus under stands the cry here spoken of to be the shout of battle, contrary to usage and the context. Piscator makes D^SX mean the confluence of the Arnon or the streams that form it, called •paix o^nsn in Num. 21: 14, and connected there with Beer. All others understand it as the name of a town. Rosenmuller and Gesenius identify it with the ‘Ayall^ of Eusebius, eight miles south of Areopolis, and not far from the southern boundary of Moab. Josephus also mentions “^dyalla in connexion with Zoar. As these, however, must have been within the Moabitish territory, Hitzig and the later German writers make Eglaim the same with En-eglaim (Ezek. 47: 10). The different orthography of the two names is noticed by none of these interpreters; and Henderson, who adopts the same opinion, merely says that “ the change of tf and $ is too frequent to occasion any difficulty.” — Beer Elim, the well of the mighty ones or heroes, the same that “ the princes and nobles of the people digged with their staves” (Num. 21: 18). This explanation, suggested by Junius, is adopted by Vitringa and the later writers, as the situation mentioned in Numbers agrees well with the context here. The word c”^x (substantially equivalent to D^ts and fiia^s, the words used in Numbers) may have been specially applied to the chiefs of Moab, as the phrase ^» s«ia occurs in the song of Miriam, Ex. 15: 15. — The mappik in the final letter of finbb”1 is wanting in some manuscripts and editions. Aurivillius regards it as a paragogic termination (compare Ps. 3: 3. 125: 3), but other interpreters follow the ancient versions in making it a suffix referring to Moab. Henderson needlessly departs in two points from the form of the original, by introducing a masculine pronoun (his wailing), and by varying the last noun (wailing, lamentation,) on the ground that the repetition would have a bad effect in English. The suffix in nnb^i may possibly refer to and mean the howling sound of it (i. e. the cry).
9. The expressions grow still stronger. Not only is the land full of tumult and disorder, fear and flight; it is also stained with carnage and threatened with new evils. For the waters of Dimon are full of blood; for I will bring upon Dimon additions (i. e. additional evils), on the escaped (literally, the escape) of Moab a lion; and on the remnant of the land (those left in it, or remaining of its population). It is an ingenious conjecture of Junius that the Dimon is the stream mentioned 2 Kings 3: 20-22, in which case the meaning of the clause would be, this stream shall not be merely red as it then was, but really full of blood. Jerome says, however, that the town Dibon, mentioned in v. 2, was also called Dimon in his day, by a common permutation of the labials. The latter form may have been preferred, in allusion to the word tt following. According to this view, the Prophet here returns to the place first named, and ends where he began. By the waters of Dimon or Dibon, most writers understand the Arnon,near the north bank of which the town was built, as the river Kishon is called the waters of Megiddo (Judg. 5: 19). Hitzig thinks it more probable that there was a pool or reservoir at Dibon, as there was at Heshbon accord ing to Cant. 7: 5, and according to modern travellers at Mab and Medeba likewise. — Those who take Dimon as the name of a river give to niBbia the specific meaning of more blood. Grotius explains it, I will give a new rea son for its being called Dimon (i. e. bloody). Gesenius also admits the probability of such an allusion, on the ground that the verb f)0?,from which is derived, often includes the meaning of some preceding word (Job 20: 9. 34: 32). Grotius and Bochart understand the last clause literally as a threat that God would send lions (or according to Piscator, wild beasts in general) to destroy the people, a judgment elsewhere threatened (Lev. 26: 22. Jer. 15: 3) and inflicted (2 Kings 17: 25, 26). But the later writers seem agreed that this is a strong figurative expression for the further evils to be suffered at the hand of human enemies. Hitzig supposes Judah to be called a lion in allusion to the prophecy in Gen. 49: 9. Cocceius and Vitringa understand it to mean Nebuchadnezzar, whose conquest of the Moabites, though not historically recorded, may be gathered from such passages as Jer. 4: 7. 49: 28. 25: 11-21. 27: 3, 6. In itself the figure is applicable to any conqueror, and may be indefinitely understood, not in reference however to the same inflictions just described, as Rosenmiiller and Gesenius think, but with respect to new inflictions not specifically mentioned though distinctly intimated in the word m’B&to. The Septuagint makes m-iK and Manx both proper names, Ariel and Admah. According to Jerome and Theodoret, Ar or Areopolis was sometimes called Ariel, and Moab, as de scended from Lot might be described as the remnant or survivor of Admah, one of the cities of the plain. Both these interpretations are adopted by Lowth, and the last by Cocceius and J. D. Michaelis.
