THIS chapter is chiefly occupied with a prophecy of desolation to the kingdoms of Syria and Ephraim, vs. 1-11. It closes with a more general threatening against the enemies of Judah, vs. 12-14. Most of the modern writers regard v. 12 as the beginning of a new and distinct prophecy, ex tending through the eighteenth chapter, and relating to the destruction of Sennacherib’s host. Some of the older writers explain vs. 12—14 as a di rect continuation of the prophecy concerning Syria and Israel. Others treat it as a fragment, or an independent prophecy, connected neither with the seventeenth nor eighteenth chapter. In favour of connecting it with ch. 17, is the absence of any distinctive title or intimation of a change of subject. In favour of connecting it with ch. 18, is the similarity of form in the beginning of 17: 12 and 18: 1. The still stronger resemblance be tween 17: 11 and 18: 15 seems to show that the whole is a continuous composition. This is, at least, a safer conclusion, and one more favourable to correct interpretation, than the extreme of mutilation and division, to which the modern criticism uniformly tends. Less exegetical error is likely to arise from combining prophecies really distinct than from separating the parts of one and the same prophecy. The most satisfactory view of the whole passage is that it was meant to be a prophetic picture of the doom which awaited the enemies of Judah, and that while many of its expressions admit of a general application, some traits in the description are derived from particular invasions and attacks. Thus Syria and Ephraim are expressly mentioned in the first part, while the terms of the last three verses are more appropriate to the slaughter of the Assyrian host; but as this is not explicitly referred to, there is no need of regarding it as the exclusive subject even of that passage. The eighteenth chapter may then be treated as a part of the same context. In the first part of ch. 17, the Prophet represents the kingdoms of Syria and Ephraim as sharing the same fate, both being brought to desolation, vs. 1-3. He then describes the desolation of Ephraim especially, by the figures of a harvest and a gather ing of olives, in which little is left to be afterwards gleaned, vs. 4—6. As the effect of these judgments, he describes the people as renouncing their idols and returning to Jehovah, vs. 7, 8. He then resumes his description of the threatened desolation, and ascribes it to the general oblivion of God, and cultivation of strange doctrines and practices, vs. 9-11. This last might be regarded as a simple repetition of the threatenings in vs. 4-6, interrupted by the promise in vs. 7, 8. But as the desolation of Syria and Israel was actually effected by successive strokes or stages, as Shalmaneser accomplished what Tiglath-pileser had begun, and as history records a partial conversion of the Israelites from their apostasy between these two attacks, it is altogether natural to understand the prophecy as exhibiting this sequence of events. In the close of the chapter, the Prophet first describes a gathering of nations, and then their dispersion by divine rebuke, which he declares to be the doom of all who attack or oppress God’s people, vs. 12-14.
1. The Burden of Damascus. Behold, Damascus is removed from (being) a city, and is a heap, a ruin. On the meaning of burden, vide supra, ch. 13: 1. The modern Germans suppose the first words to have been added by a copyist or compiler, on the ground that they are appropriate, as a title, only to the first few verses. Some have defended the correctness of the title, on the ground that Ephraim is only mentioned as an ally of Syria, or that Damascus is again included in the threatenings of vs. 9-11. The true answer seems to be, that the objection confounds these prophetic inscriptions with the titles or headings of modern composition. The latter are comprehensive summaries, entirely distinct from the text; the former are an original part of it. The one before us is equivalent to saying, ’ I have a threatening to announce against Damascus.’ Such an expression would not imply that no other subject was to be introduced, nor would the introduction of another subject justify the rejection of the prefatory formula as incorrect and therefore spurious. Not a little of the slashing criticism now in vogue rests upon a forced application of modern or occidental usages to ancient and oriental writings. The idiomatic phrase removed from a city is not to be explained as an ellipsis for removed from (the number of) cities, in which case the plural form would be essential. It rather means removed from (the state or condition of) a city, or, as Jarchi completes the construction, from (being) a city. Compare ch. 7: 8, and 1 Sam. J5: 26. Knobel need lessly and harshly explains Damascus as the name of the people, who are then described as being literally removed from the city. J. D. Michaelis still more extravagantly, makes WE a noun and ^W a participle. Behold Damascus! punishment awakes! •»*» occurs only here, and seems to have been used instead of the cognate “3 on account of its resemblance to 1*1373. The last two words are probably in apposition rather than in regimen (acervus ruinae) or in concord as an adjective and substantive (a ruinous heap). The radical idea in the first is that of overturning, in the other that of falling. Some regard this and the next two verses as a description of the past, and infer that the prophecy is subsequent in date to the conquest of Damascus and Syria. But as the form of expression leaves this undetermined, it is better to regard the whole as a prediction. Damascus is still the most flourishing city in Western Asia. It is also one of the most ancient. It is here mentioned as the capital of a kingdom, called Syria of Damascus to distinguish it from other Syrian principalities, and founded in the reign of David by Rezon (1 Kings 11: 23, 24). It was commonly at war with Israel, particularly during the reign of Benhadad and Hazael, so that a three years’ peace is recorded as a long one (1 Kings 22: 1). Under Rezin, its last king, Syria joined with Ephraim against Judah, during which confederacy, . e. in the first years of the reign of Ahaz, this prophecy was probably uttered. From the resemblance of the names Rezon and Rezin, Vitringa takes occasion to make the following extraordinary statement. *{ *Omnis docet historia mundi passim accidere, lusu quodam singular! Providentiae Divinae, ut regna et imperia iisdem vel similibus nominibus oriantur et occidant.’ Damascus appears to have experienced more vicissitudes than any other ancient city except Jerusalem. After the desolation here predicted it was again rebuilt, and again destroyed by Nebuchadnezzar, not withstanding which it reappears in the New Testament as a flourishing city and a seat of government. In the verse before us, the reference may be chiefly to its downfall as a royal residence.
2. Forsaken (are) the cities of Aroer; for flocks shall they be, and they shall lie down, and there shall be no one making (them) afraid. There are three Aroers distinctly mentioned in the Bible; one in the territory of Judah (1 Sam. 30: 28), one at the southern extremity of the land of Israel east of Jordan (Jos. 12:2. 13:6), and a third further north near to Rabbah (Jos. 13: 25. Num. 32: 24). Some suppose a fourth in Syria, in order to explain the text before us, while others understand it as the name of a province in that kingdom. Vitringa thinks it either means the plain or val ley of Damascus, or Damascus itself, so called because divided and sur rounded by the Chrysorroas, as one of the Aroers was by the Arnon (Josh. 12: 2). It is now commonly agreed that the place meant is the northern Aroer east of Jordan, and that its cities are the towns around it and perhaps dependent on it. An analogous expression is the cities of Heshbon (Jos. 13: 17). Knobel, however, understands the phrase to mean the cities Aroer, i. e. both the towns of that name, put for all the towns east of Jordan, on account of the resemblance of the name to *ns, and perhaps with allusion to the sense of nakedness, belonging to the root. Thus understood, this verse predicts the desolation of Ephraim and not of Syria. It is possible, however, that as well on account of their contiguity, as of the league be tween them, they are here, as in ch. 7:16, confounded or intentionally merged in one. At all times, it is probable, the boundaries between these adjacent states were fluctuating and uncertain. This accounts for the fact that the same place is spoken of at different times as belonging to Israel, to Moab, to Ammon, and to Syria. Forsaken probably means emptied of their people and left desolate. There is then a specific reference to deportation and exile.
3. Then shall cease defence from Ephraim and royalty from Damascus and the rest of Syria. Like the glory of the children of Israel shall they be, saith Jehovah of Hosts, ^isn^a may be taken in its usual specific sense of a fortified place, meaning either Damascus (as a protection of the ten tribes) or Samaria (Mic. 1: 5). Some disregard the masoretic interpunction, and connect the rest of Syria with the verb in the last clause: the rest of Syria shall be etc. ^xia may either mean the whole of Syria besides Damascus, or the remnant left by the Assyrian invaders. The latter agrees best with the terms of the comparison. What was left of Syria should re semble what was left of the glory of Israel. Houbigant and Lowth gratuitously read ram pride, in order to obtain a parallel expression to *naa. The glory of Israel is not Samaria, nor does it denote wealth or population exclusively, but all that constitutes the greatness of a people. (Vide supra, ch. 5: 14.) Jerome and others regard glory as an ironical and sarcastic expression; but it seems to mean simply what is left of their former glory.
4. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day, the glory of Jacob shall be brought low (or made weak), and the fatness of his flesh shall be made lean. This is not a mere transition from Syria to Ephraim, nor a mere extension of the previous threatenings to the latter, but an explanation of the comparison in the verse preceding. The remnant of Ephraim was to be like the glory of Israel; but how was that? This verse contains the answer. Glory, as before, includes all that constitutes the strength of a people, and is here contrasted with a state of weakness. The same idea is expressed in the last clause by the figure of emaciation. The image, as Gill says, is that of “ a man in a consumption, that is become a mere skeleton, and reduced to skin and bones.” Jacob does not mean Judah (Eichhorn) but the ten tribes. Hendewerk refers the suffix in the last clause to *itts and infers that the latter must denote a human subject. Junius regards the sentence as unfinished: (in the day when the glory etc. then it shall be (v. 5) etc.’ Cocceius makes this the beginning of a promise of deliverance to Judah; ‘in that day, it is true (quidem), the glory of Jacob shall be reduced etc. but (v. 5) etc. Both these constructions supply something not expressed, and gratuitously suppose a sentence of unusual length.
5. And it shall be like the gathering of (or as one gathers) the harvest, the standing corn, and his arm reaps the ears. And it shall be like one collecting ears in the valley of Rephaim. The first verb is not to be rendered he shall be (i. e. Israel, or the king of Assyria), but to be con strued impersonally, it shall be or come to pass. Some suppose the first clause to describe the act of reaping, and the second that of gleaning. Others regard both as descriptive of the same act, a particular place being mentioned in the last clause to give life to the description. The valley of Rephaim or the Giants extends from Jerusalem to the south-west in the di rection of Bethlehem. There is a difference of opinion as to the purpose for which it is here mentioned. Aben Ezra and Ewald suppose it to be named as a barren spot, producing scanty harvests, and gleanings in proportion. Most writers, on the contrary, assume it to have been remarkably fertile. Vitringa imagines at the same time an allusion to the level surface, as admitting of a more complete and thorough clearing by the reaper than uneven grounds. If we consider the passage without reference to imaginary facts, the most natural conclusion is that the valley of Rephaim was mentioned as a spot near to Jerusalem and well known to the people, for the purpose of giving a specific character to the general description or allusion of the first clause. There is no proof that it was remarkable either for fertility or barrenness. Some of the commentators represent it as now waste; but Robinson speaks of it, en passant, as “the cultivated valley or plain of Rephaim.” (Palestine I. 323.) Some refer 5r,bx to the act of gathering the stalks in one hand, in order to cut them with the other; but this is a needless refinement. The Hebrew verb probably denotes the whole act of reaping. There are several different ways of construing ^sp. Some make nap agree with it as a feminine noun (the standing harvest), which is contrary to usage. Umbreit explains it as an adverb of time (in harvest), which is very forced. Gesenius adopts Aben Ezra’s explanation of the word as equivalent in meaning to isp or i^sj? sKs. Some make T^ap itself a verbal noun analogous in form and sense to a^ba TT-HU etc. Ewald makes the season of harvest (Erntezeit) the subject of the verb; as when the harvest-season gathers etc. Perhaps the simplest supposition is that nag is in apposition with V2£, not as a mere synonyme, but as a more specific term, the crop, the standing corn. The suffix in Wit then refers to the indefinite subject of the first clause. According to Cocceius, the point of the com- 330 parison is the care and skill with which the grain is gathered to be stored away; in like manner God would cause his people to be gathered for their preservation. All other writers understand the figures as denoting the completeness of the judgment threatened against Israel.
6. And gleanings shall be left therein like the beating (or shaking) of an olive tree, two (or) three berries in the top of a high bough, four (or) Jive in the branches of the fruit-tree, saith Jehovah God of Israel. There is here an allusion to the custom of beating the unripe olives from the tree for the purpose of making oil. Those described as left may either be the few left to ripen for eating, or the few overlooked by the gatherer or beyond his reach. The common version of rn’bbs (gleaning grapes) is too restricted, and presents the incongruity of grapes upon an olive-tree. The transition from the figure of a harvest to that of an olive-gathering may be intended simply to vary and multiply the images, or, as Hitzig supposes, to complete the illustration which would otherwise have been defective, because the reaper is followed by the gleaner who completes the ingathering at once, whereas the olive-gatherer leaves some of course. The verb -ixujiis masculine and singular, as in many other cases where the subject follows. The suffix in 13 refers of course to Jacob or Israel, i. e. the ten tribes. Two, three, four, and five, are used, as in other languages, for an indefinite small num ber or a few. All interpreters agree that the idea of height is essentially included in i^ax. Aben Ezra connects it with the Arabic oyo| (Emir) from which, says Gill, “ the word amiral or admiral comes.” Most writers give the Hebrew the specific sense of high or highest branch; Henderson that of lofty tree; Gesenius the more general sense of top or summit, in order to accommodate his explanation of the same word in v. 9. The combination head of the top would then be emphatic, though unusual and scarcely natural. The suffix in n^s^’D is treated by Gesenius as superfluous, and by others as belonging proleptically to the next word. Some of the older writers make fiiis agree with it (in its fruitful branches), but the words differ both in gender and number. The latest writers seem to be agreed that the expression literally means in the branches of it, the fruit-tree, the it being unnecessary in any other idiom. The irregularity is wholly but arbitrarily removed by Hitzig’s division of the words m-iBrt IBSO. This verse is regarded by Cocceius as a promise to the people, by others as a promise to the pious Jews and especially to Hezekiah, but by most interpreters as describing the extent to which the threatened judgment would be carried. Thegleanings, then, are not the pious remnant, but the ignoble refuse who survived the deportation of the ten tribes by the Assyrians.
7. In that day man shall turn to his Maker, and his eyes to the Holy One of Israel shall look. Grotius and Junius make this an advice or exhortation—let him look—but there is no ground for departing from the strict sense of the words as a prediction, bs fwia occurs again below (ch. 31: 1) in the sense of looking to any one for help, which implies trust or confidence. The Septuagint accordingly has here nsnoi&oag. Jarchi ex plains the phrase as equivalent to ^K his”1. The article before d”iN gives it a generic not a specific sense. It does not therefore mean every man or the people in general (Barnes), but man indefinitely. It is commonly agreed that Maker is here used in a pregnant sense to describe God, not merely as the natural creator of mankind, but as the maker of Israel, the author of their privileges, and their covenant God. (Compare Deut. 32: 6.) The same idea is expressed by the parallel phrase, Holy One of Israel, for the import of which vide supra, ch. 1: 4. Some refer this verse partially or wholly to the times of the New Testament, others more correctly to the effect of the preceding judgments on the ten tribes of Israel. It is matter of history, that after the Assyrian conquest and the general deportation of the people, many accepted Hezekiah’s invitation and returned to the worship of Jehovah at Jerusalem (2 Chron. 30: 11); and this reformation is alluded to as still continued in the times of Josiah (2 Chron. 34: 9). At the same time the words may be intended to suggest that a similar effect might be expected to result from similar causes in later times.
8. And he shall not turn (or looti) to the altars, the work of his own hands, and that which his own fingers have made shall he not regard, and the groves (or images of Ashtoreth) and the pillars (or images) of the sun. The positive declaration of the preceding verse is negatively ex pressed in this, with a particular mention of the objects which had usurped the place of God. Kimchi’s superficial observation, that even God’s altar was the work of men’s hands, and that this phrase must therefore denote idols, is adopted by Clericus (aras erectas operi manuum) and by Lowth, who observes that “ all the ancient versions and most of the modern have mistaken it,” and then goes on to say that hiBSa is not in apposition with mrQTEtt but governed by it; a construction precluded by the definite article before the latter word. The true explanation is that given by Calvin, and adopted by most later writers, viz. that idol-altars are described as the work of men’s hands, because erected by their sole authority, whereas the altar at Jerusalem was, in the highest sense, the work of God himself. Vitringa arbitrarily explains the next clause (what their fingers have made) as synonymous neither with what goes before nor with what follows, but as denoting the household gods of the idolaters. The old writers take ti-ittJx always in the sense of groves, i. e. such as were used for idol-worship. It has been shown, however, by Selden, Spencer, Gesenius, and others, that in some places this sense is inadmissible, as when the miax is said to have stood upon an altar, or under a tree, or to have been brought out of a temple (1 Kings 14: 23. 2 Chron. 34: 4). The modern writers, therefore, under stand it as denoting the goddess of fortune or happiness (from ittjx to be prosperous), otherwise called Ashtoreth, the Phenician Venus, extensively worshipped in conjunction with Baal. But according to Movers, the Hebrew word denotes a straight or upright pillar. Ewald adheres to the old interpretation (Gotzenhainer). D^assn is a derivative of fiati, which properly means solar heat, but is poetically used to denote the sun itself. This obvious etymology, and the modern discovery of Punic cippi inscribed to *,ttn bsn, Baal the Sun (or Solar), lead to the conclusion that the word before us signifies images of Baal, worshipped as the representative of the sun. From the same etymology, Montanus derives the meaning, loca aprica, and Junius that of statuas subdiales. The explanation of the word, as meaning suns or solar images, is as old as Kimchi.
9. In that day shall his fortified cities be like what is left in the thicket and the lofty branch, (namely the cities) which they leave (as they retire) from before the children of Israel, and (the land) shall be a waste. It is universally agreed that the desolation of the ten tribes is here described by a comparison, but as to the precise form and meaning of the sentence there is great diversity of judgment. Some suppose the strongest towns to be here represented as no better defended than an open forest. Others on the contrary understand the strong towns alone to be left, the others being utterly destroyed, raits is variously understood to mean what is left o/and what is left in. Hitzig and Hendewerk make Horesh and Amir proper names, the former identical with Harosheth-goim (Judges 4: 2, 13,16), the latter with the ‘Anfevda. of Josephus or the ‘AvtQft of Eusebius. Symmachus, Aquila, and Theodotion all retained the word -was, and Theodotion EJin also. The Septuagint renders the words ol ‘dpOQQCuot xal ol Evaioi. For the first the Peshito has Heres. The last two versions Vitringa connects by a reference to the statement (Judg. 1: 35) that the Amorites would dwell in Mount Heres. Ewald explains the Septuagint version on the ground that the old Canaanites. divided themselves into the two great classes of Amorites (mountaineers), and Hittites (lowlanders) or Hivites (villagers). Jerome translates the words aratra et segetes. Cappellus also has arationis. Most writers give VEX the sense it has in v. 6, and lain that of a thick forest, or more specifically its underwood or thickets. Here as before, Henderson understands by n^ax a high tree, and Gesenius the summit of a hill. From the combination of these various verbal explanations have arisen two principal interpretations of the whole verse, or at least of the comparison which it contains. The first supposes the forsaken cities of Ephraim to be here compared with those which the Canaanites forsook when they fled before the Israelites under Joshua, or with the forests which the Israelites left unoccupied after the conquest of the country. The same essential mean ing is retained by others who suppose the prophet to allude to the overthrow of Sisera by Deborah and Barak. The other interpretation supposes no historical allusion, but a comparison of the approaching desolation with the neglected branches of a tree or forest that is felled, or a resumption of the figure of the olive-tree in v. 6. This last is strongly recommended by its great simplicity, by its superseding all gratuitous assumptions beyond what is ex pressed, and by its taking 11 ax in the same sense which it has above. An other disputed point is the construction of itsx, which some refer to the immediate antecedent, others less simply but more correctly to itisa “ns.
10. Because thou hast forgotten the God of thy salvation, and the Rock of thy strength hast not remembered, therefore thou wilt plant plants of pleasantness (or pleasant plantations) and with a strange slip set it. Some render n3 at the beginning/or, and understand the first clause as giving a reason for what goes before; but the emphatic “p Vs in the second clause seems to require that *s should have the meaning of because, and introduce the reason for what follows. The sense, then, is not merely that because they forgot God they were desolate, but that because they forgot God they fell into idolatry, and on that account were given up to desolation. Some regard the second clause of this verse and the whole of the next as a description of their punishment. Because they forgot God, they should sow and plant, but only for others; the fruit should be gathered not by themselves but by their enemies (Barbarus has segetes et culta novalia habebit). Others suppose the description of the sin to be continued through this verse and the first clause of the next. Because they forgot God, they planted to please themselves, and introduced strange plants into their vineyard. On the latter hypothesis, the planting is a metaphor for the culture and propagation of corrupt opinions and practices, especially idolatry and illicit inter course with heathen nations. According to the other view, the planting is to be literally understood, and the evil described is the literal fulfilment of the threatening in Deut. 28: 39. The latter sense is given by most of the early writers. Cocceius, who seems first to have proposed the other, thought it necessary to translate s>an as a preterite (plantabas), which is ungrammatical and arbitrary. The same general sense may be attained with out departing from the future form, by making the last clause of v. 10 a prediction of what they would hereafter do, without excluding the idea that they had done so already, and were actually doing it. It is not even necessary to read with Grotius quamvisplantaveris, or with Henderson thou mayest plant, or with Umbreit lass nur wachsen, although these translations really convey the true sense of the clause. It is urged as an objection to the older and more literal interpretation, that the evil threatened is too insignificant for such a context. This objection might be abated by supposing the fruit less cultivation to be not strictly literal, but a figure for disappointment or labour in vain generally. On the whole, however, it seems best to acquiesce in the opinion now very commonly adopted, that the planting here described is the sin of the people, not their punishment. Jerome confounds fi^anss with t^K*u,Jideles, i. e. not disappointing expectation. The Septuagint strangely gives an opposite meaning (yvrtvpa aTtiarov), which is regarded by some as a mere blunder, by others as an arbitrary change, and by others as an error in the text. The older writers make the Hebrew word an adjective agreeing with vines, fruits, or some other noun understood. It is now commonly explained as an abstract, meaning pleasantness, and the whole phrase as equivalent to pleasant or favourite plants. A similar construction occurs in the last clause, where slip or shoot of a stranger is equivalent to a strange slip or shoot. Those who think a literal planting to be meant, understand strange to signify exotic, foreign, and by implication valuable, costly; but upon the supposition that a moral or spiritual planting is intended, it has its frequent emphatic sense of alien from God,i. e. wicked, or more specifically idolatrous. Cocceius takes sntn as the third person, which is forbidden by the preceding second person Son. The suffix in the last word may be most naturally referred to vineyard, garden, or a like word understood. J. D. Michaelis and others suppose an allusion in this last clause to the process of grafting with a view to the improvement of the stock. The foreign growth introduced is understood by some to be idolatry, by others foreign alliance; but these two things, as we have seen before, were inseparably blended in the history and policy of Israel. (Vide supra, ch. 2: 6-8.)
11. In the day of thy planting thou wilt hedge it in, and in the morning thou wilt make thy seed to blossom, (but) away flies the crop in a day of grief and desperate sorrow. The older writers derive ijiiaatan from Mis, and explain it to mean cause to grow. The modern lexicographers assume a root Mia equivalent to Tpia, to enclose with a hedge. Either sense is appropriate as describing a part of the process of culture. In the morning is commonly explained as an idiomatic phrase for early, which some refer to the rapidity of growth, and others to the assiduity of the cultivator, neither of which senses is exclusive of the other. “13 is elsewhere a noun meaning a heap, and is so explained here by the older writers: the harvest (shall be) a heap, i. e. a small or insufficient one. Vitringa derives ^ from nw, to lament, and translates it comploratio. Others give it the sense of shaking, agitation. Gesenius and the later writers make it the preterite of iw to flee (in form like fin). <r]\^, as pointed in the common text, is a noun meaning inheritance, possession, and most of the older writers understand nbna DTS to mean in the day of expected possession. The latest writers for the most part read nbm which is properly the passive participle of nbn, but is used as a noun in the sense of deadly wound or disease, here employed as a figure for extreme distress. Even Jarchi explains it by the phrase Di”> i-ns. The same idea is expressed by tSwx sxs, which the Seventy seem to have read tiSiss sxs, like the father of a man. Kimchi appears to assume an antithesis in each of these verses between the original and degenerate state of Israel: at first thou didst plant pleasant plants, but now thou hast set strange slips; at first thou didst make it to flourish, but now the harvest etc. This, though ingenious, is entirely arbitrary and gratuitous. The usual and simple construction of the sentence gives a perfectly good sense.
12. Hark! the noise of many nations! Like the noise of the sea they make a noise. And the rush of peoples! Like the rush of mighty waters they are rushing. The diversity of judgments, as to the connexion of these verses (12-14) with the context, has been already stated in the introduction. By different interpreters they are explained, as a direct continuation of the foregoing prophecy (J. D. Michaelis)—as a later addition or appendix to it (Hitzig)—as a fragment of a larger poem (Rosenmiiller)— as an independent prophecy (Lowth)—as the beginning of that contained in the next chapter (Gesenius)—and as equally connected with what goes before and follows (Vitringa). That the passage is altogether broken and detached, and unconnected with what goes before (Barnes), it is as easy to deny as to affirm. On the whole, the safest ground to assume is that already stated in the introduction, viz. that the two chapters form a single prophecy or prophetic picture of the doom awaiting all the enemies of Judah, with particular allusion to particular enemies in certain parts, iitt is variously ex plained as a particle of cursing (Luther), of pity for the sufferings of God’s people (Calvin), of wonder (Hitzig), or of simple invocation (Vitringa). Henderson understands it as directing attention to the sound described, which the prophet is supposed to be actually hearing, an idea which Augusti happily expresses by translating the word hark! This descriptive character of the passage allows and indeed requires the verbs to be translated in the present tense, “pan most frequently denotes a multitude; but here, being connected with the future and infinitive of its root (nan), it seems to have its primary sense of noise or tumult. 1315*1 may either denote great (Luther) or many (Calvin); but the latter is preferred by most interpreters, and is most in accordance with the usage of the word. h,is<ia is not simply noise or sound (Montanus), but more specifically a roaring (Lowth) or a rushing (Augusti). The sense of storm (Cocceius) is not sufficiently sustained by usage. The nations meant are not Gog and Magog (Castalio), nor Syria and Israel (Clericus),nor their allies and abettors (Grotius), but all the hos tile nations by whom Israel was scourged (Jarchi), with particular reference to Assyria, and especially to the army of Sennacherib. The application of the verse by most interpreters to these last alone is too exclusive; much more that of Gill to the “ hectoring, blustering, and blaspheming speeches of Sennacherib and Rabshakeh.” To the poetical images of this verse a beautiful parallel is adduced by Clericus from Ovid’s Metamorphoses (XV. 604): Qualia fluctus Aequorei faciunt, si quis procul audiat ipsos, Tale sonat populus.
13. Nations, like the rush of many waters, rush; and he rebukes it, and it flees from afar, and is chased like the chaff of hills before a wind, and like a rolling thing before a whirlwind. The genuineness of the first clause is questioned by Lowth and Gesenius, because it is a repetition of what goes before and is omitted in the Peshito and several manuscripts. Hendewerk and Knobel, on the contrary, pronounce it not only genuine but full of emphasis, and Henderson describes it as a pathetic repetition. Thus the same expressions, which one critic thinks unworthy of a place in the text, are regarded by another as rhetorical beauties, an instructive illustration of the fluctuating and uncertain nature of conjectural criticism founded on the taste of individual interpreters. Luther and Augusti insert yes (ja) at the beginning of the verse, which, though unnecessary, indicates the true connexion. The verb i?a is often used in reference to God’s control of the elements, denoting, as Gataker observes, a real rather than a verbal rebuke. Ewald, on the contrary, supposes the emphasis to lie in God’s subduing the elemental strife by a bare word. The suffix in 12, and the verbs ba and S)*n, being all in the singular number, are referred by Hitzig to “jixttS, but more naturally by most other writers to Sennacherib, or his host considered as an individual. Knobel makes the suffix collective, as in ch. 5: 26, and regards the singular verbs as equivalent to plurals. By using the neuter pronoun it in English, and making the verbs agree with it in number, the peculiar form of the original may be retained without additional obscurity. The subjunctive construction given by Junius (ut fugiat) and some others, is a needless departure from the idiomatic form of the original. The ex pression from afar, is explained by Kimchi as meaning that the fugitive, having reached a distant point, would ^QQ from it still further. Vitringa understands it to mean that he would flee while human enemies were still at a distance. Most of the modern writers suppose from to be used, by a peculiar Hebrew idiom, as to would be employed in other languages. (See Nordheimer, <§> 1046, IV. 1.) Kimchi sees in P£i an allusion to the de stroying angel. (Comp. Ps. 35: 5, 6.) pfa is not dust or straw, but chaff or stubble. Mountains, according to Gataker, are here contrasted with threshing-floors; but these were commonly on hills or knolls where the wind blows freely. According to Jarchi, baba is a ball of thistle-down; according to Gill, “ a round wisp of straw or stubble.” Junius translates it rota, Cocceius vortex, Lowth gossamer. All these interpretations are too definite. Calvin explains it in accordance with its etymology, as meaning rem volubilem, any thing blown round by the wind. This is also not im probably the meaning of the Vulgate version, sicut turbo cor am tempestate. The common version, rolling thing, may therefore be retained. While there seems to be an obvious allusion to the flight of Sennacherib and the remnant of his host (ch. 37: 36, 37), the terms are so selected as to admit of a wider application to all Jehovah’s enemies, and thus prepare the way for the gen eral declaration in the following verse.
14. A.t evening-tide, and behold terror; before morning he is not. This is (or be) the portion of our plunderers, and the lot of our spoilers. According to Piscator, these are the words of the people; according to Henderson, their shout of exultation in the morning of their deliverance. Gill says the Prophet and the people speak together. There is no need, however, of departing from the simple supposition that the Prophet is the speaker, and that he uses the plural pronouns only to identify himself with the people. On account of the 1 before nsn, some think it necessary to supply a verb before r$b, (they shall come) in the evening. The English Version, on the same ground, transfers and behold to the beginning of the sentence. But nothing is more common in the Hebrew idiom than the use of and after specifications of time. (See Gesenius <§> 152, a.) In many cases it must be omitted in English, or exchanged for then; but in the present instance it may be retained. Luther renders b about (urn), Ewald towards (gegen), but Gesenius and most other writers at (zu), which is the simpler version, and the one most agreeable to usage. Tide is an old English word for time, identical in origin with the German Zeit. Lowth awkwardly substitutes at the season of evening, firtlba is not merely trouble, but terror, consternation. Vitringa renders it still more strongly horror, and Ewald Todesschrecken. Cocceius has nebula, founded on an erroneous etymology. The reference of wa^x to nn|a, it (the terror) is no more, is ungrammatical, the latter being feminine. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Henderson have they are no more. Most writers suppose a specific allusion to Sennacherib or his host. It is best, at all events, to retain the singular form of the original as being more expressive and poetical. The paraphrastic versions, he shall no more be present (J. H. Michaelis), he is vanished (Ewald), there is no more any trace of him (Augusti), and the like, are all not only less exact but weaker than the literal translation, he is not. Lowth 22 inserts i before iM1^ on the authority of several manuscripts and three ancient versions, thereby restoring, as he says, “ the true poetical form,’7 by obtaining a more exact parallel to nsni. Umbreit and others suppose night and morning to be here combined in the sense of a very short time, as in Ps. 30: 5, Weeping may endure for a night, but joy cometh in the morning. (Compare Ps. 90: 6.) Most interpreters, however, suppose an allusion to the destruction of Sennacherib’s army in a single night. Of these some, with Aben Ezra, understand by nnfea the terror of the Jews on the eve of that event, relieved in the morning by the sight of the dead bodies. Others, with Jarchi, understand by it the sudden consternation of the Assyrians themselves when attacked by the destroying angel. Jarchi seems, moreover, to refer this panic to the agency of demons (n^itt)). The allusion to Sennacherib is denied by Grotius, Clericus, and Rosenmuller, the first two supposing Syria or Syria and Israel to be the only subject of the prophecy. Gesenius and Knobel arbitrarily assert that the history of the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army is a mythus founded on this prophecy. The only reason why this assertion cannot be refuted is because it is a mere assertion. Before such license of conjecture and invention neither history nor prophecy can stand a moment. The correct view of the verse before us seems to be, that while the imagery is purposely suited to the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army, the description is intended to include other cases of deliverance granted to God’s people by the sudden and complete destruction of their enemies. Calvin supposes this more general sense to be expressed by the figure of a storm at night which ceases before morning. ’ Quemadmodum tempestas, vesperi excitata et paulo post sedata, mane nulla est amplius, ideo futurum ut hostibus dispulsis redeat subito praeter spem laeta serenitas.’ Not con tent with this comprehensive exposition, Cocceius, true to his peculiar principles of exegesis, specifies as subjects of the prophecy the whole series of Assyrian and Babylonian kings, Antiochus Epiphanes, the persecuting Jews, Nero, Domitian, Chosroes king of Persia, and the persecuting kings of France and England, adding, not without reason after such a catalogue, f utile est, cumprimis studiosis theologiae, historiam ecclesiae et hostium ejus non ignorare.’ The substantive verb being suppressed, as usual, in the last clause of the verse, it may be either an affirmation of a general fact, or an expression of desire, as in the close of Deborah and Barak’s song, so let all thine enemies perish, oh Jehovah (Judges 5: 31). The first explanation is in this case more obvious and natural, and is accordingly preferred by most interpreters.
