THIS chapter opens with an exhortation to the Moabites to seek protection from their enemies by renewing their allegiance to the house of David, accompanied by an intimation that this prospect of deliverance would not In fact be realized, vs. 1—6. From this transient gleam of hope, the prophecy reverts to a description of the general desolation and distress, in form almost identical with that in the foregoing chapter, vs. 7-12. The prophecy then closes with a specification of the time at which it was to be fulfilled, vs. 13, 14.
The needless division of the prophecy at this point seems to have some connexion with an old opinion that the lamb mentioned in v. 1 is Christ. A similar cause appears to have affected the division of the second, third, and fourth chapters.
1. In their extremity, the Moabites exhort one another to return to their allegiance to the family of David, by whom they were subdued and 312 rendered tributary (2 Sam. 8: 2). When the kingdom was divided, they continued in subjection to the ten tribes till the death of Ahab, paying yearly, or perhaps at the accession of every new king, a tribute of a hundred thousand lambs and as many rams with the wool (2 Kings 3: 4, 5). After the kingdom of the ten tribes was destroyed, their allegiance could be paid only to Judah, who had indeed been all along entitled to it. Send ye the lamb (i. e. the customary tribute) to the ruler of the land (your rightful sovereign), from Sela (or Petra) to the wilderness, to the mountain of the daughter of Zion. Hitzig and Maurer regard these as the words of the Edomites, with whom they suppose the Moabites to have taken refuge, Petra, it is true, was an Idumean city (2 Kings 14: 7); but it may at this time have been subject to the Moabites, by one of the fluctuations constantly taking place among these minor powers, or it may be mentioned as a frontier town, for the sake of geographical specification. The older writers understand these as the words of the Prophet himself; but Knobel objects that both the Prophet and the Edomites must have known that the course here recommended would be fruitless. It is best to understand them, therefore, as the mutual exhortations of the Moabites themselves in their confusion and alarm. This is also recommended by its agreement with what goes before and after. The verse then really continues the description of the foregoing chapter. The Septuagint and Peshito render the verb in the first person singular, I will send. The latter also instead of ^3 reads *a. This reading is approved by Lowth and J. D. Michaelis, who understand the verse as meaning that even if the son of the ruler of the land (i. e. of the king of Moab) should go upon an embassy of peace to Jerusalem, he would not obtain it. Others suppose the flight of the king’s son to be mentioned as an additional trait in the prophetic picture. But this departure from the common text is wholly unnecessary. Forerius and Malvenda suppose is to mean a battering-ram, or take it as a figurative term for soldiery or military force. Calvin understands by it a sacrificial lamb to be offered to Jehovah as the ruler of the earth) in token of repentance and submission. Most other writers understand the tribute of lambs paid by Moab to the kings of Israel, and Barnes combines this sense with that before it, by supposing that the Jews exacted lambs from tributary powers, in order to supply the altar with victims. Jerome puts Piua in apposition with 12, and understands the verse as a prayer or a prediction, that God would send forth Christ, the lamb, the ruler of the land (or earth). Others take Vaa as a vocative, used collectively for fc^iua: send oh ye rulers of the land. Most modern writers make it either a genitive (the lamb of the ruler) i. e. due, belonging to him, or a dative (to or for the ruler of the land), a common construction after verbs expressing or implying motion. Clericus supposes the ruler of the land to be Nebuchadnezzar as the conqueror of Judah. Sela, which properly denotes a rock, is now commonly agreed to be here used as the name of the city Petra, the ancient capital of Idumea, so called because surrounded by impassable rocks, and to a great extent hewn in the rock itself. It is described by Strabo, Diodorus, and Josephus, as a place of extensive trade. The Greek form IJirQa is sup posed to have given name to Arabia Petraea in the old geography. If so, the explanation of that name as meaning stony, and as descriptive of the soil of the whole country, must be incorrect. Petra was conquered by Trajan, and rebuilt by Hadrian, on whose coins its name is still extant. It was afterwards a bishop’s see, but had ceased to be inhabited before the time of the crusades. It was then entirely lost sight of, until Burckhardt in 1812 verified a conjecture of Seetzen’s, that the site of Petra was to be sought in the valley called the Wady Musa, one or two days’ journey southeast of the Dead Sea. It was afterwards explored by Irby and Mangles, and has since been often visited and described. See in particular Robinson’s Palestine II. 573-580. Grotius supposes Petra to be mentioned as an extreme point, from Petra to the wilderness, i. e. throughout the whole extent of Moab. Ewald understands it to be named as the most convenient place for the purchase of the lambs required. Vitringa sup poses that the Moabites fed their flocks in ‘the wilderness by which Petra was surrounded. Luther’s translation, from the wilderness, is wholly inconsistent with the form of the original. The construction given by some of the old writers, Sela of the wilderness, disregards the local or directive n. That of Gesenius and other recent writers, through or along the wilderness,, is also a departure from the form of the original, which can only mean from Petra to the wilderness (and thence) to Mount Zion (or Jerusalem). Jerome explains the whole verse as a prediction of Christ’s descent from Ruth the Moabitess, the lamb, the ruler of the land, sent forth from the rock of the wilderness! The Targum paraphrases ruler of the land by the Messiah (or anointed) of Israel, which may possibly mean nothing more than king.
2. This verse assigns the ground or reason of the exhortation in the one before it. And it shall be (or come to pass, that) like a bird wander ing, (like) a nest cast out, shall be the daughters of Moab, the fords of Arnon. The construction cast out from the nest is inconsistent with the form of the original. Nest may be understood as a poetical term for its contents. The nidi edaces of Virgil are analogous. There are three interpretations of axia mas. 1. The first gives the words the geographical sense of villages or dependent towns. (Vide supra ch. 3: 16. 4: 4.) To this it has been objected that m has this sense only when it stands in connexion with the metropolis or mother city. Ewald and Hitzig modify this interpretation by making daughters mean the several communities or neighbourhoods of which the nation was composed. 2. The second explanation makes it mean the people generally, here called daughters, as the whole population is elsewhere called daughter. 3. The third gives the words their strict sense as denoting the female inhabitants of Moab, whose flight and sufferings are a sufficient index to the state of things. In the absence of any conclusive reason for dissenting from this strict and proper sense of the expressions, it is entitled to the preference, ni’nasa is not a participle agreeing with nisa, passing (or when they pass) the Arnon; nor does it mean the two sides of the river, but its fords or passes. Ewald supposes it to be put for the dwellers near the river, which is arbitrary. Some suppose it to be governed by a preposition understood, or to be used absolutely as a noun of place, while others put it in apposition with rnsa, £ the daughters of Moab, the fords of Arnon.’ The b in the last word denotes possession— the fords which belong to Arnon. This is mentioned as the principal stream of Moab. Whether at this time it ran through the country or was its northern boundary, is doubtful.
3. Most of the older writers, from Jerome downwards, understand this verse as a continuation of the advice to the Moabites, in which they are urged to act with prudence as well as justice, to take counsel (i. e. provide for their own safety) as well as execute judgment (i. e. act right towards others). In other words, they are exhorted to prepare for the day of their own calamity, by exercising mercy towards the Jews in theirs. Calvin adopts this general view of the meaning of the verse, but interprets it ironically as he does the first, and understands the Prophet as intending to reproach the Moabites sarcastically for their cruel treatment of the Jewish fugitives in former times. This forced interpretation, which is certainly unworthy of its author, seems to have found favour with no other. It is not the first case in which Calvin has allowed his exposition to be marred by the gratuitous assumption of a sarcastic and ironical design. Gesenius and most of the later writers follow Saadias in regarding this verse as the language of the Moabitish suppliants or messengers, addressed to Judah. lit-cn n^2> they explain to mean bring counsel, i. e. counsel us, and execute justice, i. e. treat us justly. Hitzig takes fiWs in the sense of intervention (interpose between the parties), Maurer in that of intercession, Hendewerk in that of decision. According to Aben Ezra, nxs laran means apply or exercise your understanding (Ps. 90: 12); according to Vitringa, apply prudence to your conduct, i. e. regulate it prudently. The explanation of the verse as the words of the Moabites addressed to the Jews, is favoured by the foregoing context, which relates throughout to the sufferings of Moab, whereas on the other supposition, the prophet suddenly exhorts the sufferers to harbour the fugitives of that very nation, with whom they had them- 315 selves been exhorted to seek refuge. This interpretation also relieves us from the necessity of determining historically what particular affliction of the Israelites or Jews is here referred to, a question which has occasioned much perplexity, and which can be solved only by conjecture. According to Vitringa, the passage refers to the invasion of Reuben, Gad, and Manasseh, by Tiglath Pileser in the fourth year of Ahaz (2 Kings 15: 29), and also to the invasion of Judah by the Edomites about the same time (2 Chron. 28: 17). Others refer the passage to Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah, and others to that of Nebuchadnezzar. Knobel supposes the object of address to be the Edomites. As noonday heat is a common oriental figure to denote distress (Isai. 4: 6. 25: 4. 32: 2), so a shadow is relief from it. Possibly, however, the allusion here is to the light of noonday, and the shadow dark as night denotes concealment. If so, the clause is equivalent in meaning to the one which follows. Some of those who adopt the other sense suppose a climax in the sentence. Relieve, refresh the sufferers—or at least conceal them—or if that is too much to ask, at least do not betray them.
4. Let my outcasts, Moab, sojourn with thee, be thou a covert (refuge or hiding-place) to them from the face (or presence) of the spoiler (or oppressor); for the extortioner is at an end, oppression has ceased, con sumed are the tr ampler s out of the land. Here, as in the preceding verse, the sense depends upon the object of address. If it be Moab, as the older writers held, the outcasts referred to are the outcasts of Israel. If the address be to Israel, the outcasts are those of Moab. The latter interpretation seems to be irreconcilable with the phrase Stfta ^n’ns. Gesenius disregards the accent and supposes an ellipsis before Moab: my outcasts, even those of Moab. So also Rosenmuller and Hendewerk. The other recent German writers follow Lowth in reading sxfa ^ma outcasts of Moab, a construction found in all the ancient versions. Maurer, without a change of vowels, explains ^mi as an old form of the plural construct. Calvin gives the verbs in the last clause a past or present sense, and supposes the first clause to be ironical. As if he had said, ’ Yes, give them shelter and protection now, now when their oppressor is destroyed, and they have no need of assistance.’ Ewald also takes the preterites strictly, but understands the second clause to mean that the Moabites were encouraged thus to ask aid of Judah, because the former oppressive government had ceased there and a better reign begun, more fully described in the next verse. But most interpreters, ancient and modern, give the verbs in this last clause a future sense. As if he had said, < Give the fugitives a shelter; they will not need it long, for the extortioner will soon cease,’ etc. This gives an appropriate sense, whether the words be addressed to Israel or Moab. Some who adopt the same construction supply the ellipsis in another way. ’ Fear not to shelter them, for the oppressor will soon cease,’ etc. Knobel ex plains the clause as an assurance, on the part of the Moabites, that they would no longer vex or oppress Edom, to whom he imagines that the words are addressed. The collective construction of &xn with 133F) is not uncommon in the case of participles. (Ewald <§> 599.)
5. This verse contains a promise, that if the Jews afforded shelter to the fugitives of Moab, their own government should be strengthened by this exercise of mercy, and their national prosperity promoted by the appearance of a king in the family of David, who should possess the highest qualifications of a moral kind for the regal office. And a throne shall be established in mercy, and one shall sit upon it in truth in the tent of David, judging and seeking justice and prompt in equity. Knobel supposes the throne here meant to be that of the Jewish viceroy in Edom, called a BB&J to distinguish him from the bllto or lord paramount. Clericus fancies an allusion to Gedaliah who was appointed viceroy of Judah by Nebuchadnezzar. Barnes, who follows the old writers in making Moab the object of address, under stands this is a promise that the Jewish government would hereafter exercise kindness towards the Moabites. Grotius understands this verse as a promise to the Moabites that their throne should be established (if they bar boured the Jewish refugees) in the tabernacle of David, i. e. under the shadow or protection of his family. But the tabernacle of David has no doubt the same meaning here as the analogous expression in Amos 9: 11. Barnes’s translation, citadel of David, is entirely gratuitous. Most writers understand it as a promise of stability to Judah itself. Some suppose a reference to Hezekiah; but the analogy of other cases makes it probable that the words were intended to include a reference to all the good kings of the house of David, not excepting the last king of that race, to whom God was to give the throne of his father David, who was to reign over the house of Jacob forever, and of whose kingdom there should be no end (Luke 1: 32, 33). Hence the indefinite expression, one shall sit, i. e. there shall always be one to sit on David’s throne. It is true that J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans make S’r*1 agree with:s£to as a noun—there shall sit -T O thereon a judge, etc. But this construction is forbidden by the position of the latter word, and by its close connexion with ttJ^j which can only be construed as a participle.
6. We have heard the pride of Moab, the very proud, his haughtiness and his pride and his wrath, the falsehood of his pretensions. Those writers who suppose Moab to be addressed in the preceding verses, under stand this as a reason for believing that he will not follow the advice just given. As if he had said: ’ it is vain to recommend this merciful and just course, for we have heard etc.’ But the modern writers who regard what immediately precedes as the language addressed by the Moabitish fugitives to Judah, explain this as a reason for rejecting their petition. In the second clause the English Version supplies the substantive verb, he is very proud. A simpler construction is adopted by most writers, which connects it immediately with what precedes. Knobel makes it agree with “paw, but Ewald more n-aturally with sso». The four derivatives of one root in this sentence are imitated in Henderson’s paraphrase: haughtiness, haughty, high-mindedness, hauteur. Most modern writers are agreed that “jS is here an adjective meaning right or true, and that in combination with the negative it forms a compound noun meaning vanity or falsehood. Ehtn is variously explained as denoting lies, vain pretensions, plausible speeches, idle talk, all which ideas are perhaps included. Barnes introduces an interjection in the second clause (ah! his haughtiness! etc.) but the true construction is no doubt the common one, which governs these nouns by ISSBIB. This is also the simplest construction of the last clause: (we have heard the falsehood of his vain pretensions.’ It is unnecessary, therefore, to supply either are or shall be.
7. Therefore (because thus rejected) Moab shall howl for Moab; all of it shall howl; for the grapes (or raisin-cakes) of Kir-hareseth shall ye sigh (or moan), only (i. e. altogether) smitten. Umbreit and others make ^b1^ a descriptive present (Moab howls). Others, as DeWette, read must howl; Henderson, may howl; Ewald, let Moab howl. There is, however, no sufficient reason for departing from the strict sense of the future.—Jerome and Clericus take b in the sense of to, Knobel in that of as to or as for, making njoa an absolute nominative—as for Moab, it shall howl— equivalent in emphasis to Moab, yes, Moab shall howl. For an example of the same construction, he refers to ch. 32: 1; but as it is confessedly a rare one, and as there is no necessity for assuming it in this case, it is better to adhere to the common interpretation of ax-rob, as denoting the subject or occasion of the lamentation. By Moab howling for Moab, Jerome under stands the mutual lamentations of the city and the provinces, or town and country; Barnes, the alternate responses of one part to another in their lamentation; others simply the mourning of one Moabite for another. The idea may be that the nation of Moab mourns for the land of Moab, but the simplest supposition is that Moab for Moab means Moab for itself. The /English version of rib (every one) overlooks the suffix, which is also the case with the simple version all, and the distributive paraphrase of Clericus (quotquot sunt). The form of the original is retained by Ewald (ganz es jammre) let it all lament. The next clause Clericus translates, to (or at)the walls of Kir-hareseth ye shall talk (ad muros colloquemini). But all the later writers give the particle the sense of for, as in the first clause, and the verb that of sigh or moan. The word iwm seems to have perplexed the old translators, some of whom confound it with the verb •miittji or one of its derivatives. Thus the Vulgate has his qui laetantur super muros cocti lateris. Lowth and Dathe read ^3X on the authority of Jer. 47: 31. But in all such cases of imitation or reconstruction which occur in Scripture, there are many intentional and significant changes of one word for another similar in form but different in sense. For a clear and ample illustration of this practice, see Hengstenberg’s comparison of Psalm xvm with 2 Sam. xxu, in his commentary on the former. Vitringa takes IUT^X in the sense of wineflagons, and this interpretation is approved by most of the early writers, who suppose tniD-iiux to have here the same sense as D^wm and nittriax else where (Hos. 3: 1. Cant. 2: 5. Comp. 2 Sam. 6: 19, 1 Chron. 16: 3). J. D. Michaelis and the later Germans give the word in this one case the sense of foundations (equivalent in this connexion to ruins) derived from an Arabic analogy. Cocceius curiously combines the two ideas by explaining the word to mean the props or supports of the vines (sustentacula uvarum). Ewald and Knobel have returned to the old interpretation, except that they explain the word wherever it occurs to mean, not flasks or flagons, but cakes of grapes or raisins pressed together. This allusion to grapes agrees well with the subsequent mention of the vines of Moab. The other interpretation is favoured by the meaning of the name Kir-hareseth (a wall of earth or brick). The same place is mentioned 2 Kings 3: 25, and is no doubt identical with Kir-Moab (ch. 15: 1), which latter form may have been used to correspond with the parallel name A.r-Moab. The particle 7|K, which is variously rendered but (Clericus), for (Barnes), surely (English Version), wholly (Henderson), strictly means only, nothing but, and is so translated by Knobel (nur zerschlagen) and Ewald (nichts als betriibt). Knobel applies the last word in the sentence to the grapes or raisin-cakes, as being all consumed or gone, implying the desolation of the vineyards. It is more natural, however, to refer it to the people, as being smitten, down cast, and distressed.
8. For the fields of Heshbon are withered—the vine of Sibmah— the lords of the nations broke down its choice plants—unto Jazer they reached—they strayed into (or through) the desert—its branches—they were stretched out—they reached to (or over) the sea. Clericus renders ^sx as a future, which destroys the force of the description. On the construction of V?ES< with WBIIU, vide supra, ch. 3: 12. Sibmah is mentioned Num. 32: 38. Josh. 13: 19, and in the former place joined with Nebo, which occurs above, ch. 15: 2. It had been taken by the Amorites, but was probably again recovered. Eusebius speaks of it as a town of Gilead, and Jerome describes it as not more than half a mile from Heshbon. For “ossthe LXX have xaTanivovTss, confounding it, as Clericus observes, with ^s. Heathen, in the modern sense, is not a correct version of ta”“ia, as the Moabites themselves were heathen. According to the English Version, it would seem to be the lords of the nations who came to Jazer, wandered through the wilderness, etc. All this, however, is really predicated of the vines, the luxuriant growth of which is the subject of the following clauses. As the verb B^fi is used, ch. 28: 1, to express the intoxicating power of wine, Cocceius gives it that sense here, and makes it agree with pppniB as its subject: the choice vines of Sibmah overcame the rulers of the nations, i. e. the wine was drunk at royal tables. This ingenious exposition is adopted by Vitringa, Lowth, Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk, DeWette, Knobel, on the ground of its agreement with the subsequent praises of the vine of Sibmah. Gesenius objects that there is then no mention of the wasting of the vineyards by the enemy, unless this can be supposed to be included in tt>ax. Besides Gesenius, Rosenmtiller, Ewald, Umbreit, and most of the older writers, make mpviia the object of the verb. On the meaning of the noun itself compare what is said of the cognate from pTUB, supra, ch. 5: 2. Jazer is mentioned Num. 21: 32, and described by Eusebius as fifteen miles from Heshbon, and ten west of Philadelphia, on a stream running into the Jordan. It is here mentioned as a northern point, the desert and the sea representing the east and the west or south. Knobel infers from this that Sibmah was a well-known centre of wine-culture. In the absence of a preposition before ia*i», it may be rendered either through the wilderness, or simply into it. Knobel supposes the word stray or wander to be used because the wilder ness is pathless. The exact sense of p’n^ttj is things sent forth, or as Clericus expresses it, missiones. las without a preposition sometimes denotes the act of passing simply to a place, and this sense is adopted here by the Septuagint and Henderson. But most writers adhere to the more usual sense of passing over, which may either mean that the vines covered the shore and overhung the water, or that the luxuriant vineyards of Moab really extended beyond the northern point of the Dead Sea. In the parallel passage, Jer. 48: 32, we read of the sea of Jazer. Henderson regards the c-i in that phrase as an interpolation, a conclusion not sufficiently sup ported by the authority of two Hebrew manuscripts and one ancient ver sion. The sea of Jazer may have been a lake in its vicinity, or even a reservoir, such as Seetzen found there. The same traveller found an abundant growth of vines in the region here described, while at Szalt (the ancient Ramoth) Burckhardt and Buckingham both speak, not only of the multitude of grapes, but of an active trade in raisins.
9. Therefore I will weep with the weeping of Jazer (for) the vine of Sibmah. I will wet thee (with) my tears, Heshbon and (thee) Elealeh! For upon thy fruit and upon thy harvest a cry has fallen. Some suppose these to be the words of a Moabite bewailing the general calamity. There is no objection, however, to the supposition, that the prophet here expresses his own sympathy with the distress of Moab, as an indirect method of de scribing its intensity. The emphasis does not lie merely in the Prophet’s feeling for a foreign nation, but in his feeling for a guilty race, on whom he was inspired to denounce the wrath of God. Most of the modern writers give the verbs a present form; but Ewald makes them expressive of en treaty, let me weep etc. There is no sufficient cause, however, for depart ing from the strict sense of the future, which is still retained by Barnes and Henderson. Clericus takes h3^n ronx together and translates \tflebo in fletu; but the accents join the second word, no doubt correctly, with what follows. The sense is not that he will weep for the vine of Sibmah as he does for Jazer, the construction given by Clericus and Barnes, but that he will weep for the vines of Sibmah as Jazer (i. e, the inhabitants of Jazer) did, who were particularly interested in them. There is no need of supposing, with Hendewerk, a reference to the destruction of Jazer by the Israelites in the times of Moses (Num. 21: 32, 32: 35). “jTns is strongly rendered by Jerome (inebriabo),Clericus (irrigabo), Hendewerk (uberstrome), but strictly means to saturate with moisture. On the anomalous form, see Gesenius, <§> 74, 17, § 71, 7. “pp, which elsewhere means the fruit of summer (Jer. 40: 12. Am. 8: 1), is used here and in ch. 28: 4 to denote the ingathering of the fruit. This peculiar usage of the term is urged by Hendewerk as a proof that the passage was written by Isaiah. In like manner, he maintains that if d^n in v. 8 has the same sense as in ch. 28: 1, as Hitzig alleges, it is an incidental proof that Hitzig is mistaken in denying the genuineness of this prophecy. These arguments are mentioned, not on account of their intrinsic weight, but as effective arguments ad hominem, and as illustrations of the ease with which the weapons of a fanciful criticism may be turned upon itself. Wn, according to its etymology and usage, may be applied to any shout or cry whatever, and is actually used to denote both a war-cry or alarm (Jer. 51: 14), and a joyful shout, such as that which accompanies the vintage (Jer. 25: 30). In the next verse, it has clearly the latter sense, which some retain here also, giving to ^22 the sense of ceasing, as in the text of the English Version. Others prefer the former sense, as given in the margin of the English Bible, and take >s bss in that of falling upon suddenly, attacking by surprise, which is sometimes express ed elsewhere by a ^£5 (e. g. Josh. 11; 7). The latest writers are agreed, however, that there is here an allusion to both senses or applications of the term, and that the thing predicted is, that instead of the joyful shout of vintage or of harvest, they should be surprised by the cry of battle. This idea is beautifully clothed in another form by Jeremiah (48: 33), their shouting shall be no shouting, i. e. not such as they expected and designed, or, as De Wette vigorously renders it, war-cry, not harvest-cry (Schlachtruf, nicht Herbstruf). On the strength of the parallelism, Knobel gives to *nsp the sense of vintage or fruit-harvest, as in ch. 18: 5. Ewald retains the strict sense, and supposes the two kinds of ingathering to be distinctly specified. For T^p and wri, Lowth reads ^sa and 1110, in imitation of Jer. 48: 32. But the insecurity of such assimilations has been shown already in the ex position of v. 7. The ancient versions, and especially the Septuagint, are so confused and unintelligible here that Clericus, not without reason, represents them as translating audacter aeque ac absurde.
10. And taken away is joy and gladness from the fruitful field, and in the vineyards shall no (more) be sung, no (more) be shouted: wine in the presses shall the treader not tread; the cry have I stilled (or caused to cease). Hendewerk translates the vav at the beginning 50 that, in order to show that this verse describes the effect of what is threatened in v. 9. Henderson omits the particle entirely. It is best, however, to give it its proper sense of and. There is no need of departing from the future meaning of the verbs; but most of the later writers prefer the descriptive present. The strict sense of 5)DX« is gathered, and by implication taken away from its former place. On the masculine form of the verb, see Gesenius <§> 144, a. Jerome and Clericus take bad as a proper name, denoting a cultivated hill like Carmel; but it is no doubt an appellative, as in ch. 10: 18. DeWette and Knobel give it here the specific sense of orchard, others that of fruitful field, or cultivated ground in general. According to Clericus the verbs in the next clause are active, and 56 equivalent to EPK &6 (nemo vociferabitur). They are really passive, both in form and meaning, and inde finitely construed. Barnes and Henderson resolve it into our idiom by em ploying a noun and the substantive verb: there shall be no cry or shouting. The later Germans retain the original construction. Hendewerk explains ssi^ as the Pual of wn, Gesenius as the Palul of sii. In the next clause, Barnes, DeWette, and Ewald, read no treader, Henderson and Umbreit more exactly the treader, leaving the $b to qualify the verb. The English Version, on the other hand, by using the expression no wine, seems to imply that the treading of the grapes would not be followed by its usual result, whereas the meaning is that the grapes would not be trodden at all. The same version needlessly puts treaders in the plural. The idiomatic combination of the verb and its participle or derivative noun (“p^itt “p^) ‘ls *not uncommon in Hebrew. (See for example, Ez. 33: 4. 2 Sam. 17: 9. Deut. 22: 8.) The word *vats, used by Barnes and Henderson in rendering this 21 clause, is less appropriate than the common version presses. (Vide supra, ch. 5: 2.) The ancient mode of treading grapes is still preserved in some of the monuments of Egypt. Umbreit gives YT*n the general sense of tu mult (Getiimmel), Ewald that of wild noise (den wilden Larm); but most writers understand it here as specifically meaning the vintage or harvestshout. Town may be rendered either as a preterite or present. It signifies not merely to bring to an end, but to still or silence. This prediction of course implies the failure of the vintage, if not the destruction of the vineyards.
11. Therefore my bowels for Moab like the harp shall sound, and my inwards for Kirhares. The viscera are evidently mentioned as the seat of the affections. Modern usage would require heart and bosom. Barnes correctly applies to this verse the distinction which philologists have made between the ancient usage of bowels to denote the upper viscera and its modern restriction to the lower viscera, a change which sufficiently accounts for the different associations excited by the same or equivalent expressions, then and now. Ewald goes too far in softening the expression when he translates fi^sa feelings. The comparison is either with the sad notes of a harp, or with the striking of its strings, which may be used to represent the beating of the heart or the commotion of the nerves. Sound is not an adequate translation of lafv, which conveys the idea of tumultuous agitation. Clericus understands the mention of the bowels as intended to suggest the idea of a general commotion (totus commovebor). He also gives to?5, as in v. 7, the sense of ad. Kir-hares is another variation of the name written Kir-hareseth in v. 7, and Kir-Moab in ch. 15: 1.
12. From the impending ruin Moab attempts in vain to save him self by supplication to his gods. They are powerless and he is desperate. And it shall be (or come to pass), when Moab has appeared (before his gods), when he has wearied himself (with vain oblations) on the high place, then (literally and) he shall enter into his sanctuary to pray, and shall not be able (to obtain an answer). Another construction, equally grammatical, though not so natural, confines the apodosis to ^Di*1 N^I: ( *when he has appeared etc. and enters into his sanctuary to pray, he shall not be able.’ A third gives to “O its more usual sense of *that; but this requires fi^ni and fix^D to be taken as futures, which is inadmissible. Lu ther and Castalio, on the other hand, refer even -3T1 to the past: ’ and has accomplished nothing.’ Some regard haoa as impersonal, it shall be seen or when it is seen. But the phrase would then add nothing to the sense, and n*r>i is the technical term for the appearance of the worshipper before his god. (Vide supra, ch. 1: 12.) Lowth reads ftao (when Moab shall see)
on the authority of the Targum and Peshito. At the same time he pronounces it ’ a very probable conjecture ‘ of Seeker, that Mjoa is a various reading for fia^s, inadvertently inserted in the text. To this opinion Gesenius also is inclined, though he retains both words, and copies the paronomasia by rendering them man sieht and sick muhet. For the first, Knobej substitutes zieht. Ewald has erscheint and umsonst weint. Henderson translates ^ though, which is unnecessary, but does not affect the sense. Vitringa regards naa as identical with ^w^oV, and quotes Diodorus’s description of the vast altars sometimes erected by the ancients, the ascent to which must of course have been laborious. That the Hebrew word does not mean a hill, he argues from the fact that m’aa were sometimes erected in cities (2 Chron. 28: 25. Jer. 32: 35). But the word means a height or high place, whether natural or artificial. The singular form may be regarded as collective, but need not be translated in the plural. The weariness here spoken of is understood by some as referring to the complicated and laborious ritual of the heathen worship; by others, simply to the multitude of offerings; by others, still more simply, to the multitude of prayers put up in vain. J. D. Michaelis reads my sanctuary, changes vb to i^>, and takes bail in the sense of the corresponding root in Arabic: c then shall he come to my sanctuary and in it shall trust.’ iripE is also explained to mean the temple at Jerusalem, by Ephraem Syrus, Clericus, Schmidius, and Gill, the last of whom asserts, that c the house or temple of an idol is never called a sanctuary.’ But see Ezek. 28: 18. Am. 7: 9, 13. The same explanation of ttnpn is erroneously ascribed by Barnes to Kimchi. Solomon Ben Melech makes it mean the palace of the king, and Jarchi applies n^nn ±y nxba to the weariness of the defenders with fighting from the towers. According to the true interpretation of the verse, the last clause may either represent the worshipper as passing from the open high place to the shrine or temple where his god resided, in continuation of the same religious service, or it may represent him as abandoning the ordinary altars, and resorting to some noted temple, or to the shrine of some chief idol, such as Chemosh (1 Kings 11: 17). The Septuagint refers bav to the idol (he shall not be able to deliver him), but as this had not been previously mentioned, the construction is a harsh one. As applied to Moab, it does not mean that he should not be able to reach or to enter the sanctuary on account of his exhaustion, but that he should not be able to obtain What he desired, or indeed to effect any thing whatever by his prayers. Ewald imagines the apodosis of the sentence to have been lost out of the text, but thinks it may have been preserved by Jeremiah in the words, Moab shall be ashamed of Chemosh (Jer. 48: 13).
13. This is the word which Jehovah spake concerning Moab of old. The reference is not to what follows but to what precedes. Tsta does not mean since the date of the foregoing prophecy, or since another point of time not specified—such as the time of Balak, or of Moab’s subjection to Israel, or of its revolt—but more indefinitely, heretofore, of old. It may be applied either to a remote or a recent period, and is frequently used by Isaiah elsewhere, in reference to earlier predictions. The same contrast between t»a and nn$ occurs in 2 Sam. 15: 34. im does not mean a sentence but a prophecy. Some give to btt its usual sense to, and suppose it to point out Moab as the object of address. Others give it the strong sense of against. But it is best to understand it as indicating merely the theme or subject of the declaration.
14. And now Jehovah speaks (or has spoken), saying, in three years, like the years of an hireling, the glory of Moab shall be disgraced, with all the great throng, and the remnant (shall be) small and few, not much. By the years of an hireling most writers understand years computed strictly and exactly, with or without allusion to the eager expectation with which hirelings await their time, and their joy at its arrival, or to the hard ships of the time of servitude. J. D. Michaelis supposes a specific reference to the lunar years of the ancient calendar, as being shorter than the solar years. Knobel supposes three years to be put for a small number, but this indefinite interpretation seems to be precluded by the reference to the years of a hireling. The glory of Moab is neither its wealth, its army, its people, nor its nobility exclusively, but all in which the nation gloried. The a before ^ does not mean consisting in, or notwithstanding, but with, including, “part denotes not merely a great number, but the tumult and confusion of a crowd. ^23 «•& is by some understood to mean not strong. It was possibly intended to include the ideas of diminished numbers and diminished strength.—As the date of this prediction is not given, the time of its fulfilment is of course uncertain. Some suppose it to have been executed by Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia (2 Kings 19: 9); others by Shalmaneser; others by Sennacherib; others by Esarhaddon; others by Nebuchadnezzar. These last of course suppose that the verses are of later date than the time of Isaiah. Henderson regards them; as the work of an inspired writer in the following century. That the final downfall of Moab was to be effected by the Babylonians, seems clear from the repetition of Isaiah’s threatenings by Jeremiah (ch. 48). Some indeed suppose that an earlier invasion by Assyria is here foretold, as a pledge of the Babylonian conquest which had been predicted in the foregoing chapter. But this supposition of a twofold catastrophe appears to be too artificial and complex. Barnes understands the thirteenth verse to mean that such had been the tenor of the prophecies against Moab from the earliest times, which were now to receive their final accomplishment. A majority of writers look upon vs. 13, 14, as a postscript or appendix by Isaiah to an earlier prediction of his own, or of some older prophet, whom Hitzig imagines to be Jonah, on the strength of 2 Kings 14: 25. The only safe conclusion is that these two verses were added by divine command in the days of Nebuchadnezzar, or that if written by Isaiah they were verified in some of the Assyrian expeditions which were frequent at that period, although the conquest of Moab is not explicitly recorded in the history.
