HERE begins a series of prophecies (ch. xxiv—xxxv), having reference chiefly to Judah. It is not divided into parts by any titles or express intimations of a change of subject. The style is also homogeneous and uniform. The attempts which have been made to subdivide this portion of the book are for the most part arbitrary. The conventional division into chapters may be retained as a matter of convenience. The first four chapters (xxiv—xxvn) are now universally regarded as forming one continuous composition. What is said of ch. xxiv is therefore in some degree applicable to the whole. This chapter contains a description of a country filled with confusion and distress by a visitation from Jehovah in consequence of its iniquities, vs. 1-12. It then speaks of a remnant scattered among the nations and glorifying God in distant lands, vs. 13-16. The Prophet then resumes his description of the judgments coming on the same land or another, winding up with a prophecy of Jehovah’s exaltation in Jerusalem, vs. 16—23. Eusebius and Jerome explained this chapter as a prediction of the end of the world, in which they have been followed by Oecolampadius and some later writers. Cyril referred it to the same event, but understood it in its primary meaning as a summary of the foregoing prophecies against foreign nations. The older Jews (as we learn from Jarchi and Aben Ezra) applied the first part of the chapter to the Assyrian invasions of the Holy Land, and the last to the wars of Gog and Magog in the days of the Messiah. But Moses Haccohen referred the whole to the former period, Kimchi and Abarbenel the whole to the latter. Luther ap plied it to the desolation of Judea by the Romans. Calvin agreed with Cyril in regarding it as a summary of the preceding prophecies both against Israel and foreign nations, but denied any reference to the day of judgment. Grotius adhered to Moses Haccohen, in applying the whole to the Assyrian invasions. He referred the first part to the wasting of the ten tribes by Shalmaneser, and the second to Sennacherib’s invasion of Judah. Cocceius is as usual in the opposite extreme, applying the chapter to the German and Bohemian war, Gustavus Adolphus, Wallenstein, the taking of Ratisbon, the battle of Norlingen, and the conflicts between Charles I. of England and the Parliament. Clericus understood the chapter as a prophecy of the Babylonian conquest of Judea, the captivity, and the restoration of the Jewish commonwealth. Vitringa explained it as relating, in its primary sense, to the persecution of the Jews by Antiochus Epiphanes and his successors, and their deliverance by the Maccabees, but in its mystical or secondary sense to certain changes which await the Christian church in future times. Lowth 27
differed little in reality from Calvin, except that he confined the prediction more exclusively to Judah and its sufferings at the hands of the Assyrians, Babylonians, and Romans. None of the writers who have now been mentioned entertained the least doubt as to the genuineness of the prophecy. The turning point between the old and new school of criticism is occupied by J. D. Michaelis, who without suggesting any doubt as to the age or author, pronounces the passage the most difficult in the book, and is altogether doubtful whether it has ever been fulfilled. Koppe divides the chapter into two independent prophecies. Eichhorn approves of this division, and infers from the style and phraseology, that the chapter was written after the destruction of Babylon. Bertholdt determines in the same way that it was composed immediately after the destruction of Jerusalem by Nebuchadnezzar Rosenmuller, in the first edition of his Scholia, agrees with Eichhorn. In the second, he maintains that Isaiah was the author, and that he here ex presses a general anticipation of approaching changes Gesenius pronounces the style far inferior to that of Isaiah, and ascribes the passage to a writer in the Babylonian exile just before the fall of Babylon. Hitzig on the other hand ascribes it to an Ephraimite captive in Assyria, and supposes the destruction of Nineveh to be foretold. Ewald thinks the prophecy was written in Palestine after the restoration of the Jews, and in anticipation of Cambyses’ attack on Egypt. Umbreit agrees substantially with Gesenius, and Knobel with Bertholdt. We have here another illustration of the value of the boasted modern criticism. Gesenius is confident that the prophecy was written in Babylon; Ewald and Knobel are equally confident that it was written in the Holy Land. Gesenius disparages the style as cold and artificial; Hitzig speaks of it with contempt as awkward, feeble, and inelegant; Ewald treats it with respect as poetical and skilful, although not original; while Umbreit lauds it as a noble specimen of Hebrew poetry. In this case, as in others, each writer first determines upon general grounds the age of the pro duction, and then confirms it by internal proofs. The points of resemblance to the undisputed writings of Isaiah are set down as plagiarisms or imitations. Ewald even goes so far as to mark certain passages as borrowed from older writers no longer extant. The paronomasias and other verbal peculiarities of the passage, instead of proving it the work of Isaiah, in whose acknowledged writings they are also found, prove the contrary because they are so numerous. In this way all proof of the genuineness of a disputed passage is rendered impossible. If it has not the usual characteristics of the author, it is therefore spurious; if it has, it is evidently an imitation. It is true, distinctions are made as to the number, good taste, and connexion; but they are always made at will, and so as to confirm the previous conclusion. Setting aside this empirical criticism as unworthy of attention, we may observe that the endless diversity of judgment, both among the older and later writers, shows that the prediction is generic. Henderson observes indeed on Lowth’s suggestion that the prophecy refers to more than one invasion of the Holy Land, that “ this hypothesis, though supplying an easy mode of interpreting all its parts, is to be rejected, having been obviously framed for the purpose of getting rid of the difficulties;” as if hypotheses were ever framed for any other purpose, and as ‘if there could be a stronger proof that a hypothesis is true, than the fact of its getting rid of the difficulties and supplying an easy mode of interpreting all the parts. In this case, as in many others, the exclusive restriction of the prophecy to one event is wholly arbitrary. What the Prophet has left indefinite we have no right to make specific. Particular allusions there may be; but this, as we have seen in other cases, does not limit the application of the whole.
1. Behold Jehovah (is) pouring out the land and emptying it, and he will turn down its face, and he will scatter its inhabitants. The figure is that of a bottle or other vessel drained of its contents by being turned up side down. The face is not the soil or ground (Hendewerk), but the upper part or mouth of the vessel. The last clause resolves the figure into literal expressions, “psfn is not to cause to flow, as in Arabic, but to scatter, according to the uniform Hebrew usage. The allusion may be both to flight and deportation. Gesenius admits that nan with the participle commonly indicates present or future time; but nevertheless applies this verse to the Babylonian conquest of Judea, which was long past at the time when he supposes the chapter to have been written. Ewald and Hitzig, who refer it to events still future at the date of the prediction, insist upon the future form. The simple truth is that Isaiah here speaks of the Babylonian conquest as still distant, but at the same time as infallibly certain. To avoid this conclusion, Gesenius denies that Isaiah was the author, and violates the usage of the language by translating this whole passage in the past tense.
2. And it shall be, as the people so the priest, as the servant so his master, as the buyer so the seller, as the borrower so the lender, as the debtor so the creditor. That is, all ranks and classes shall fare alike. The double a to express the idea as-so is like the use of et-et in Latin where we say both-and, or aut-aut where we say either-or. Kimchi says that each term includes a double comparison, (the people) like the priest, (and the priest) like the people, (the servant) like the master, (and the master) like the servant. On the form N^3 see Gesenius <§> 74. 20. The mention of the priest is no more a proof of later date in this case than in Hos. 4: 9. Saadias makes pa mean a prince or ruler, which is also given in the mar gin of the English Bible.
3. The land shall be utterly emptied and utterly spoiled, for Jehovah speaks (or hath spoken) this word. Gesenius arbitrarily translates the verbs as preterites, in which he is followed by Hendewerk. Ewald explains them as descriptive presents. DeWette as usual disregards the reduplication of the Hebrew verbs. It is no doubt emphatic, however, and may be expressed by a simple repetition, emptied emptied (Ewald), or by combining a verb and adjective, empty and emptied (Hitzig), or by introducing an intensive adverb, utterly, wholly, as in the English Version and most others. According to Knobel, p^n is put for the more usual form psn hi order to assimilate it to the infinitive. The full ortho graphy with 1 is mentioned by Gesenius as a sign of later date, although he does not deny that it also occurs in the older books. The land here mentioned is supposed by Hitzig to be Assyria; by all other interpreters Pales tine. In order to justify his reference of this part of the chapter to past time, Gesenius explains the last clause as relating to the divine purpose or decree (for so Jehovah had commanded), whereas it elsewhere denotes the certainty of the event because predicted by Jehovah. The necessity of this departure from the usage of the phrase is a strong objection to his interpretation of the chapter as written during the Babylonian exile by a captive Jew.
4. The earth mourneth, fadeth; the world languisheth, fadeth; the highest of the people of the earth languish, ‘pxn is not the land (Gesenius,) as appears from the parallel expression bnn. Earth and world however are not to be taken in their widest sense (Rosenmuller),but as poetical descriptions of a country (Ewald); not Assyria (Hitzig), but Palestine. Jerome refers the whole description to the end of the world. For d’ha Koppe reads d”ha from the height (i. e. cast down from it), for which there is neither authority nor necessity. J. D. Michaelis inserts and after diia (the high ones and the people of the land) which is also unnecessary. The Septuagint and Peshito omit ds, but it is found in all manuscripts. d”n» is an abstract used for a concrete, height for highest part or high ones. Henderson sup poses an allusion to the two thousand nobles carried away by Nebuchadnezzar. The figures are borrowed from the vegetable world. Several of the German writers amuse themselves with trying to copy the paronomasia in the first clause. Gesenius has achzei und lechzet, Ewald es welkt es verwelkt, Knobel wclkt und fallt die Welt. It is curious to observe the pains laid out upon these useless and unsuccessful imitations by writers who often disregard the idiomatic form of the construction.
5. And the land has been profaned under its inhabitants, because they have transgressed the laws, violated the statute, broken the everlasting covenant. Knobel reads, and so the land, as if the verse contained the punishment and not the sin of the chosen people. In accordance with this hypothesis, he explains the profaning of the land to be its invasion and subjection by the Babylonians. Under its inhabitants will then mean nothing more than the land with those upon it. All other writers seem to apply the passage to the Jews, and to understand it as referring their calamities to their transgressions. The land is said to be profaned as being a holy land or consecrated to Jehovah. Most interpreters suppose a special reference to pollution by blood or the guilt of murder in accordance with Symmachus’s version cqporoxfOfifft?. The ancient versions give rntn the sense of/or, on account of; but the proper meaning under is far more appropriate and expressive. The ancient versions also make pn a plural, and this reading is found in one manuscript and one edition. Aben Ezra explains the unusual plural min as denoting not the law of Moses, but the laws common to all nations. Vitringa in like manner makes it synonymous with the^’us gentium of the Roman writers. Hitzig understands by it the Noachic precepts, on account of the allusion to the flood in v. 8. There seems to be no sufficient reason for departing from the ordinary meaning of the Hebrew words as de noting the divine law generally. The three terms used are substantially synonymous, law, statute, covenant, being continually interchanged. Henderson needlessly refers the last to the covenant at Sinai, and Hendewerk distinguishes between the moral and ceremonial parts of the Mosaic law. The simple meaning of the verse is that they disobeyed the will of God. In the phrase, they changed the ordinance, Gill finds a reference not only to the popish corruptions of the eucharist, but to the substitution of infant sprink ling for adult immersion.
6. Therefore a curse devoured the earth, and those dwelling in it were reckoned guilty (and so treated). Therefore the inhabitants of the earth burned, and there are few men left, itbx does not here mean false swearing, as explained in the Targum and by Jarchi and Kimchi, but the curse of God, attending the violation of his law. The mention of this penalty is absurdly represented by Gesenius and Knobel as a proof of the late date of the prophecy, oax is taken by some of the early writers in the sense of being desolate. Its true sense is that of being recognized as guilty and treated accordingly. It therefore suggests the ideas both of guilt and punishment. Twenty-eight manuscripts and three editions with the Peshito read fibnx instead of nbsx, a variation probably derived from v. 4, or from Jer. 43: 10. The Septuagint makes Tin mean they shall be poor; Symmachus they shall be exhausted; J. D. Michaelis they shall be diminished. The Targum gives the word the general sense of being consumed or destroyed; but the latest writers all prefer the more specific sense of burning or being burnt, either by internal heat like that of fever, or by the fire of out ward persecutions. Houbigant and Lowth without the least authority read inn for T.n. Gesenius supposes the imagery to be copied from Joel 1: 8-20
7. The new wine mourneth; the vine languisheth; all the merryhearted do sigh. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Henderson understand mii^n as de noting the juice of the grape while on the vine; Knobel by synecdoche the grape itself. But as the whole description is figurative, there is no need of departing from the usual sense of sweet or new wine. Rosenmiiller and Barnes think the wine is here described as mourning because none drink it; Hendewerk because it is drunk by foreigners and not by natives. This is changing a natural and beautiful figure into a frigid conceit. Gesenius in forms us that this verse was also copied from Joel (ch. 1: 10—12) where he says it stands in a much more natural connexion.
8. Still is the mirth of drums; ceased is the noise of revellers; still is the mirth of the harp. Music is here mentioned as a common token and accompaniment of mirth. Three manuscripts instead of “psm read “pxx
9. With the song they shall not drink wine; bitter shall strong drink be to them that drink it. Hitzig understands this to mean that they shall not drink wine at all; Knobel, that it shall not be accompanied with music. “oW is neither beer (J. D. Michaelis is) nor palm-wine (Lowth) specifically, but intoxicating drinks in general. The last clause means of course that they should lose the appetite for such enjoyments.
10. Broken down is the city of am fusion (emptiness or desolation), shut up is every house from entering (i. e. so that it is not or cannot be entered). The city meant is neither Nineveh (Hitzig) nor cities in general (Rosenmuller), but Jerusalem. Hitzig and Knobel prefer the construction, it is broken down into (i. e. so as to be) a city of desolation, but the common construction is more natural which makes inn irnp the subject of the verb. The last clause might be understood to refer to the closing of the houses by the inhabitants against the enemy, or to their being left unoccupied; but the first clause seems to show that it rather relates to the obstruction of the entrance by the ruins. Rosenmuller’s explanation of inn r,^”ip, as denoting city of idols or idolatrous city, is very unnatural. Hitzig and others make the ^ before tva simply equivalent to without. Compare the similar expression in ch. 23: 1.
11. A. cry for wine in the streets — darkened is all joy — departed is the gladness of the earth. To the critical acumen of Gesenius this verse stands confessed as a plagiarism from Joel 1:15. To the exquisite taste of Hitzig it is not only an unda redundans, but completely lame and flat (vollcnds lahm und matt). One ground of objection to it is that a calling for wine, though perfectly appropriate in Joel, is entirely out of place in this description of a conquered and dismantled town. The later writers have had taste enough to see that the cry meant is not that of drunkards for more liquor, but of the perishing inhabitants for necessary refreshment (Hendewerk), perhaps with special reference to the sick and wounded (Henderson) or to children (Hitzig). Knobel gives the words the still more general sense of lamentation for the blasted vintage. Hendewerk points out that wine alone is mentioned here, as bread is in Lam. 4: 4, while in Lam. 2: 12 both are combined. There is no need of taking iirrx in the sense of a call to the wine-sellers from their customers (Kimchi), much less of supplying a negative, so as to make it mean that there is no call for wine in the streets (Clericus). Houbigant and Lowth for rws read siias (has passed away). Rosenmiiller gives the same or nearly the same sense to the common text. But all the latest writers acquiesce in Buxtorf’s definition of the word as meaning to grow dark, with special reference to the setting of the sun or the coming on of twilight. This beautiful figure is itself an answer to the aesthetical sneers of certain critics, n^as may either have the general sense of gone, departed (Henderson), or the more specific one of banished (Gesenius), expatriated (J. D. Michaelis), carried captive (Umbreit). The first clause is rendered more expressive in the versions of De Wette, Umbreit, and Hendewerk, by the omission of the verb. The last mentioned writer understands by the joy of the land the population of Jerusalem. Nine manuscripts have ba before “fixn, and the Septuagint supplies it before
12. What is left in the city is desolation, and into ruins is the gate beaten down. The first clause is in apposition to the last of v. 11. Joy is gone and desolation is left behind. All the modern writers take n^xa as an adverbial accusative qualifying r^ by describing the effect or result of the action. The gate is here named as the most important part of the city; but it does not directly mean the city itself. On the form rs^ see Gesenius <§> 66. Rem. 8. 9
13. For so shall it be in the midst of the earth among the nations, like the beating of an olive-tree, like gleanings when the gathering is done. There is no need of rendering ^ but (Rosenmiiller) or yet (Henderson), as the Prophet is stating more distinctly the extent of the desolation which he had before described. The fact that some survive is indeed referred to, but only indirectly and by implication, so that the verse is not properly an anti thesis to that before it. Instead of saying that Isaiah here repeats his beautiful comparison in ch. 17: 5, 6, Gesenius and his followers set this down as the plagiarism of a later writer. The Prophet is thus reduced to a dilemma; if he does not repeat his own expressions, he is a stranger to himself and his own writings; if he does, he is an imitator of a later age. Rosenmiiller supposes an allusion not only to paucity but to inferiority of quality. In the midst of the nations is explained by Hitzig as contrasting the condition of the country with that of its neighbours. Others understand it of actual dispersion among foreign nations.
14. They shall raise their voice, they shall sing (or shout), for the majesty of Jehovah they cry aloud from the sea. The pronoun at the beginning is emphatic. They, not the nations (Schelling) or the Jews left in the land (Barnes), but the few dispersed survivors of these judgments. The a before “paw is not a particle of time (Rosenmuller), but points out the subject (Maurer) or the occasion of the praise (Gesenius). Ewald supposes the words of the song itself to be begun in the last clause of this verse and continued through the next. But this compels him to change the pointing of ibns and make it an imperative. The Septuagint and Theodotion have the waters of the sea, as if instead of taja they read B^a or Bi/a. Dathe gives the “ja its comparative sense: more (i.e. louder) than the sea. Jarch had before given the same construction but a different sense: more than (at) the sea, i. e. more than they rejoiced at the deliverance from Egypt. Many render the phrase from the west, which is rather implied than expressed. Hitzig denies that there is here a transition to another subject, as admitted by almost all interpreters.
15. Therefore in thejires glorify Jehovah, in the islands of the sea the name of Jehovah God of Israel. Ewald supposes the words of the song or shout to be continued. Hendewerk and Barnes understand the Prophet as here turning from the remnant of Israel in Palestine to the scattered exiles. But it seems to be really an address to the persons who had already been described as praising God, exhorting them to do so still, B-nx has been variously explained as meaning valleys, caverns, doctrines, fires of affliction, exile, Urim (and Thumim), Ur (of the Chaldees), etc. Clericus makes E^xn the passive participle of ^K2. It is now commonly agreed to be a local designation. Doederlein deduces from an Arabic analogy the meaning in the north. Barnes suggests that G-IIX may denote the northern lights or aurora borealis. Henderson thinks the Prophet means the region of volcanic fires, viz. the Mediterranean coasts and islands. But the weight of exegetical authority preponderates in favour of the meaning in the east (as the region of sunrise or of dawning light) in opposition to the sea or west. Various attempts have been made to mend the text by reading fi^»a (Lowth), or B^asa (Houbigant), tn-inn or B’naoa (Calmet). Hensler reads as a contraction for o^xfa, like c”nx3 Amos 8: 8.
16. From the wing (skirt or edge) of the earth we have heard songs, praise to the righteous, and I said, woe to me, woe to me, alas for me! The deceivers deceive, with deceit the deceivers deceive. We hear promises and praise to the righteous, but our actual experience is that of misery, p^s is not an epithet of God (Henderson) or Cyrus (Hendewerk), but of righteous men in general. Gesenius infers from the second clause that the writer was involved in the miseries of Babylon; but the same use might be made of every ideal situation which the book presents. Several of the ancient versions and of the rabbinical interpreters take Mi in the sense of secret: my secret is to me, and I must keep it, i. e. I cannot utter what I know. Aben Ezra and Kimchi, followed by Vitringa, give it the specific sense of leanness. But the latest writers understand it as denoting ruin, misery, or woe, and the whole exclamation as substantially equivalent to that which follows. Here, as in ch. 21: 2, the latest writers make i;a express not fraud but violence, which is contrary to usage and entirely unnecessary. Ewald takes iaa in its usual sense of garment, and explains the clause to mean, that robbers strip off the very clothes. is piixb is commonly regarded as the very language of the song referred to; but it may as well be a description of it, (a song of’) praise or honour to the righteous.
17. Fear and pit and snare upon thee, oh inhabitant of the land! This may be either a warning (are upon thee) or the expression of a wish (be upon thee). It is a probable though not a necessary supposition, that the terms here used are borrowed from the ancient art of hunting, inft would then denote some device by which wild beasts were frightened into snares and pitfalls. It is at least a remarkable coincidence that the Romans gave the name formido to an apparatus used for this purpose. Henderson explains the Hebrew word to mean a scarecrow. The paronomasia is copied by Gesenius, Ewald, Umbreit, and Hitzig, in as many different forms. It is of course regarded as a proof of recent origin, though no one undertakes to say at what precise period the paronomasia became a favourite with the Hebrew writers.
18. And it shall be (that) the (one) flying from the voice of the fear shall fall into the pit, and the (one) coming up from the midst of the pit shall be taken in the snare; for windows from on high are opened, and the foundations of the earth are shaken. The first clause carries out the figures of the foregoing verse; the second introduces those of a deluge and an earthquake. One manuscript instead of ^>ipa reads h3BE, and some interpreters regard bip as a mere idiomatic pleonasm. But it much more probably denotes the voice of the hunter or the noise made by the instrument called -ins. The allusion to the flood is acknowledged by all writers except Knobel, who objects that the Hebrews did not believe that there could be a 426 second deluge; as if this belief could prevent their understanding or employ ing such a figure of speech. There are thousands now who have the same belief, but who do not for that reason feel debarred from representing over whelming evils as a deluge of misfortune or of wrath. Akin to this is the assertion of the same writer, and of Gesenius before him, that the early Hebrews actually thought that there were windows in the solid vault of heaven. In the same way it might be proved that Milton held the stars and planets to be burning lamps, and that Gesenius himself when he speaks of a column of smoke means a solid piece of masonry. It seems to be a canon with some critics, that all the prosaic language of the Bible is to be interpreted as poetry, and all its poetry as prose, especially when any colour is afforded for the charge of ignorant credulity. Kimchi imagines that win dows are here mentioned as the apertures through which God looks upon the earth; Knobel as those through which he sends down thunderbolts and lightning. But the allusion to the flood is rendered certain by the resemblance of the language to that used in Gen. 7:11.
19. Broken, broken is the earth; shattered, shattered is the earth; shaken, shaken is the earth. This striking verse is pronounced by Gesenius and Hitzig, in accordance with some mystical canon of criticism, very inelegant and in bad taste. They both assign the reason that the word earth is repeated. Hitzig adds that the verse contains an anticlimax, which is not the case, as no natural phenomenon can be more impressive than an earthquake. The reduplication of the Hebrew verbs is as variously ex pressed by the different translators as in v. 3.
20. The earth reels, reels like a drunken man, and is shaken like a hammock. And heavy upon her is her guilt, and she shall fall and rise no more. The ideas earth and land, both which are expressed by the Hebrew •ps, run into one another and are interchanged in a manner not to be ex pressed in a translation. The old translation of the second clause (removed like a cottage) is now commonly abandoned, ris-fca is properly a temporary lodging-place. In ch. 1: 8 it was applied to a watch-shed in a melon-field. Here it seems to signify something more movable and something suspended in the air. The latest writers are accordingly agreed in retaining the interpretation put upon the word by the Targum, the Peshito, and Saadias, which makes it mean a cloth or mat suspended between trees or boughs of trees for the use of nocturnal watchers. Such are described by Niebuhr as common in Arabia, and are known throughout the east by a name essentially identical with those used in the versions above cited. The readers of this verse would never have discovered, without Hitzig’s aid, that its figures are extravagant and overstrained.
21. And it shall be in that day (that) Jehovah shall visit (for the purpose of inflicting punishment) upon the host of the high place in the high place and upon the kings of the earth upon the earth. Interpreters have commonly assumed that the host of the high place is the same with the host of heaven, and must therefore mean either stars (Jerome) or angels (Aben Ezra) or both (Gesenius). Grotius understands by it the images of the heavenly bodies worshipped in Assyria. Gesenius finds here an allusion to the punishment of fallen angels, and then makes this a proof of recent origin, because the Jewish demonology was later than the time of Isaiah. It may be doubted whether there is any reference to the host of heaven at all. fiVia is a relative expression, and although applied to heaven in v. 18, is applied to earth or to human society in v. 4. The former sense may seem to be here required by the antithesis of siaix; but it is not clear that any antithesis was intended, which is the less probable because n^tx is not the customary opposite of heaven. The sense may simply be that God will judge the high or lofty host viz. the kings of the land upon the land. But even if there be an antithesis, and even if the host of heaven in the usual sense of the expression be alluded to, the analogy of this whole context would seem to indicate that this is merely a strong figure for different ranks or degrees of dignity on earth. It is not indeed probable that the Jewish hierarchy is specifically meant, as Barnes supposes; but it is altogether natural to understand the words more generally as denoting kings and potentates. And even on the supposition that the contrast here intended is between the hosts of heaven and earth, the obvious meaning is that God will judge the principalities and powers of both worlds, in order to accomplish his declared de signs. To pronounce the passage spurious because it seems to speak of evil spirits and their doom, is to assume that nothing is ever mentioned for the first time, but that all allusions to a doctrine must be simultaneous. Even in the later books of Scripture, how few and incidental and obscure are the allusions to this subject! In the same taste and spirit and of equal value are Gesenius’s attempts to connect this verse with the doctrines of Zoroas.ter. It is not unworthy of remark that Hitzig, who delights in all such demonstrations of a later date and lower standard of opinion in the sacred books, foregoes that pleasure here and flatly denies that there is any reference to demons in the text, because he had assumed the ground that it was written in Assyria before the fall of Nineveh.
22. And they shall be gathered with a gatnenng as prisoners in a pit, and shall be shut up in a dungeon, and after many days they shall be visited. Whether nsox be construed with ii&x (the gathering of a prison er) or explained as an emphatic reduplication, the sense of the first clause evidently is that they shall be imprisoned. The persons meant are of course the principalities and powers of the verse preceding. The affinity between •nto and nabs cannot well be expressed in English, as it is in the German version of Gesenius (verschlossen ins Verschloss). There are two interpretations of the verb lips’1. According to one it means they shall be punished, or at least brought forth to judgment. This is the sense put upon it by Eichhorn, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, and Hendewerk. The other is, they shall be visited in mercy. This explanation is as old as Rabbi Joseph Kimchi, if not as the Peshito. Calvin seems to favour it, and it is adopted by Hitzig, Henderson, and Ewald. Barnes, who refers these verses to the Jewish priests, gives the verb the specific meaning, shall be mustered, with a view to their return from exile.
23. And the moon shall be confounded and the sun ashamed, for Jehovah of Hosts is king in Mount Zion and in Jerusalem, and before his elders there is glory. Before the splendour of Jehovah’s reign all lesser principalities and powers shall fade away. There is no need of supposing an allusion to the worship of the sun and moon. Some give to ^3 the sense of when, which is admissible but needless and indeed inadequate. It was not merely when Jehovah reigned, but because he reigned, that all inferior luminaries were to be eclipsed. The elders are the rulers of Israel as the church. Henderson sees a distinct allusion to the form of government by elders, as that which shall prevail in the last and best days of the church. The simple meaning of the verse appears to be that Jehovah’s reign over his people shall be more august than that of any created sovereign. This is true of the church in various periods of history, but more especially in those when the presence and power of God are peculiarly manifested. The affinity between this verse and the last of the preceding chapter seems to show that their juxtaposition is by no means fortuitous. The Septuagint renders the first clause thus, the brick shall moulder and the wall shall fall. They evidently read risab and nan, although Grotius imagines that the deviation from the true sense was intentional, in order to avoid offending the Platonists of Egypt by disparaging the sun and moon. If such a motive could have influenced the authors of the version, its effects would not have been confined to one or a few comparatively unimportant passages.
