Isaiah 27

THIS chapter is an amplification of the last verse of the one preceding, and contains a fuller statement both of Israel’s chastisements and of Jehovah’s judgments on his enemies. The destruction of the latter is foretold as the slaughter of a huge sea-monster, and contrasted with God’s care of his own people even when afflicting them, vs. 1—5. Hereafter Israel shall flourish, and even in the mean time his sufferings are far less than those of 457 his oppressors, vs. 6, 7. The former is visited in moderation, for a time, and with the happiest effect, vs. 8, 9. The latter is finally and totally destroyed, vs. 10, 11. This shall be followed by the restoration of the scattered Jews, vs. 12, 13.

1. In that day shall Jehovah visit, with his sword, the hard, the great, the strong (sword), upon Leviathan the swift (or flying) serpent, and upon Leviathan the coiled (or crooked) serpent, and shall slay the dragon which (is) in the sea. It is universally agreed that this is a prediction of the downfall of some great oppressive power, but whether that of a single nation or of several, has been much disputed. Clericus supposes two, Vitringa and many others three, to be distinctly mentioned. In favour of supposing a plurality of subjects may be urged the distinct enumeration and description of the monsters to be slain. But the same form of expression occurs in many other places where there can be no doubt that a single subject is intended. To the hypothesis of three distinct powers it may be objected, that two of them would scarcely have been called Leviathan. To the general hypothesis of more than one, it may be objected that by parity of reasoning three swords are meant, viz. a hard one. a great one, and a strong one. But even if three powers be intended, it is wholly impossible to identify them, as may be inferred from the endless variety of combinations which have been suggested; Egypt, Assyria, and Babylonia; Egypt, Babylonia, and Tyre; Assyria, Babylonia, and Rome; Babylonia, Media, Per sia, etc. etc. Gill thinks the three meant are the devil, the beast, and the false prophet; Cocceius, the emperor, the pope, and the devil. What is common to all the hypotheses is, that the verse describes a power or powers hostile and oppressive to the people of God. The most probable opinion, therefore, is that this was what the words were intended to convey. Orjf a more specific reference must be assumed, it is worthy of remark that nearly all the hypotheses, which apply the words to two or more of the great pow ers of the ancient world, make Babylonia one of them. From this induction we may safely conclude, that the leviathan and dragon of this verse are descriptive of a great oppressive power, with particular allusion to the Babylonian empire, a conclusion perfectly consistent with the previous allusions to the fall of Babylon and the restoration of the Jews from exile. Assuming this to be the general meaning of the verse, that of its mere details becomes either easy or comparatively unimportant. The word leviathan, which, from its etymology, appears to mean contorted, coiled, is sometimes used to denote particular species (e. g. the crocodile), and sometimes as a generic term for huge aquatic animals, or the larger kinds of serpents, in which sense the corresponding term “p2Fi is also used. They both appear to be employed in this case to express the indefinite idea of a formidable monster, which is in fact the sense now commonly attached to the word dragon. The second epithet Vip^P” means tortuous, either with respect to the motion of the ser pent, or to its appearance when at rest. Bochart regarded the ‘E?%&adog of the Greek mythology as a corruption of this Hebrew word. The other epithet rns has been variously explained. Some of the ancients confound it with irna a bar, and suppose the serpent to be so described either in reference to its length, or stiffness, or straightness, or strength, or its penetrating power, or the configuration of its head. J. D. Michaelis gives it the sense of northern, and supposes the three objects here described to be the three constellations which exhibit the appearance and bear the name of serpents or dragons. This explanation, founded on Job 23: 16, does not materially change the meaning of the verse, since the constellations are supposed to be referred to, as connected in some way with the fortunes of great states and empires. The allusion however is so far-fetched and pedantic, that, al though it suits the taste of Michaelis and Hitzig, who delight in recondite interpretations, it will scarcely satisfy the mind of any ordinary reader. The only explanation of n-HS which is fully justified by Hebrew usage is that of fugitive or fleeing, which may either be a poetical equivalent to fleet, or descriptive of the monster as a flying serpent. Hitzig objects to the supposition of a single monster, on the ground that these two epithets, flying and coiled, are incompatible, as if the same serpent could not be described both in motion and at rest, not to mention that the second term, as Umbreit suggests, may itself be descriptive of motion. The omission of any descriptive epithet with “pat) makes it probable at least that it is not a new item in the catalogue. There is no need of explaining c^ to mean Babylonia as in ch. 21: 1, since the expression relates to the type not to the antitype, and must be joined with “psn to express the complex idea of a sea-serpent. For the meaning of the phrase to visit upon, vide supra, ch. 13: 11. The sword is a common emblem for the instruments of the divine vengeance. The explanation of nttijD as meaning heavy is not justified by usage; severe or dreadful does not suit the context, as the other two epithets denote physical qualities of a literal sword. The word no doubt means hard-edged, or, as Lowth expresses it, well-tempered.

2. On the explanation of this verse depends that of a large part of the chapter. The two points upon which all turns, are the meaning of sis? and the reference of the suffix in tb. The modern writers solve the latter by supposing D”is to be feminine in this one place, and when expressions after wards occur which are inapplicable to a vineyard, regard them as inaccura cies or perhaps as proofs of an uncultivated taste, whereas they only prove that the assumed construction is a false one. The only supposition which will meet the difficulties, both of the syntax and the exegesis, is the one 459

adopted by most of the old writers, to wit, that tt^ refers, not directly to c~:3, but to Jerusalem or the daughter of Zion, i. e. to the church or people of God considered as his spouse (ch. 1: 21). This reference to a subject not expressly mentioned might be looked upon as arbitrary, but for the fact that the assumption of it is attended with fewer difficulties than the construction which it supersedes, as will be seen below. As to the other word, tradition and authority are almost unanimous in giving it the sense of sing. Assuming that the primary meaning of the verb is to answer, and that the derivative strictly denotes responsive singing, Lowth, Dathe, Schnurrer. and others, have converted the whole context to the end of v. 5, into a dialogue between Jehovah and his vineyard. This fantastic arrangement of the text has been rejected by most later writers, as artificial, complex, and at variance with the genius and usage of Hebrew composition, Lowth’s eloquent plea to the contrary notwithstanding. But the same interpreters, who have relieved the passage from this factitious burden and embarrassment, continue for the most part to regard what follows as a song, though not a dramatic dialogue, because the people are commanded in v. 2 to sing, and the song of course must follow. To this exposition, which is really a relic of the old dramatic one, there are several objections. In the first place, no one has been able to determine with precision where the song concludes, some choosing one place for its termination, some another. This would of course prove nothing in a clear case, but in a case like this it raises a presumption at the least that a song, of which the end cannot be found, has no beginning. But in the next place, it is easy to see why the end cannot be easily defined, to wit, because there is nothing in the next three, four or five verses to distinguish them as being any more a song than what precedes and follows, whether with respect to imagery, rhythm, or diction. In the third place, the presumption thus created and confirmed is corroborated further by the obvious incongruity of making the song, which the people are supposed to sing, begin with 1 Jehovah keep it etc. It is in vain that Grotius with his usual ingenuity explains *iss as meaning l *sing in the name or person of Jehovah,’ and that other writers actually introduce *thus saith the Lord at the beginning of the song. This is only admitting indirectly that the supposition of a song is wholly arbitrary in a case so doubtful, whatever it might be if the mention of a song were more explicit. For in the fourth place, there is this striking difference between the case before us and those which are supposed to be analogous (e. g. ch. 5: 1. 26: 1), that in these the verb -pia and its derivative noun of the same form are employed, whereas here the verb is different and the noun song does not appear at all. Under these circumstances, it would seem to be sufficient to take «i3? as a general exhortation to sing, without supposing that the words of the song actually follow, which is surely not a necessary supposition. But in the fifth place, out of fifty-six cases in which the piel of w occurs, there are only three in which the sense of singing is conceivable, and of these three one (Ps. 88: 1) is the enigmatical title of a Psalm, another (Ex. 32: 18) is so dubious that the one sense is almost as appropriate as the other, and the third is that before us. It is true the concordances and lexicons assume two different roots, but this is merely to accommodate the difficulties of these three texts, and the multiplication of roots is now universally regarded as at best a necessary evil. On such grounds the assumption of the meaning sing could hardly be justified, even if it were far more appropriate to the context than the common one. But in the last place, while the supposition of a song, as we have seen, embarrasses the exposition, the usual meaning of the verb ttss is perfectly appropriate. This meaning is to afflict, and especially to afflict in an humbling and degrading manner. This may seem to be utterly at variance with the context as it is commonly explained; but the common explanation rests on the supposititious meaning of the verb, and cannot therefore be alleged in favor of that meaning. On the usual hypothesis, the verse exhorts the people to sing to the vineyard or the church; on the one now proposed it challenges her enemies to do their worst, declaring that God still protects her. This explanation of the verse agrees well with the distinct allusions to the punishment of Israel in vs. 4, 7, 8,9, which would be comparatively out of place in a song of triumph or gratulation. Against this explanation of is?, and of the whole verse, lies the undivided weight of tradition and authority, so far as I can trace the exposition of the passage, the only writer who adopts the sense afflict being Gousset (or Gussetius) in his Comment. Ebr. as cited by Gill. So unanimous a judgment might be looked upon as perfectly decisive of the question but for two considerations; first, that the proposed interpretation removes a variety of difficulties, not by forsaking usage but by returning to it; and secondly, that none of the interpreters consulted seem to have adverted to the facts already stated, with respect to the usage of rtS5. But besides the objection “from tradition and authority, another may be urged of a grammatical nature, viz. the unusual connexion of the verb with its object not directly but by means of the preposition b. To this it can only be replied, in the first place, that the choice presented is a choice of difficulties, and that those attending the construction now in question seem to be less than those attending any other; in the next place, that although this verb does not elsewhere take the preposition * after it, there are many cases in which other active verbs are separated from their objects by it, the verb then denoting the mere action, and the V pointing out the object *as to which, or with respect to which, it is performed; and in the last place, that the b may have been rendered necessary here because the nouns before the verb are also in some sense its objects. The latest German writers, it is true, construe “ran 0*13 as an absolute nominative, (as to the vineyard of wine) or as the subject of a verb understood (there shall be a vine yard of wine) but these are mere expedients to explain the fi?, and must of course give way to any simpler method of accomplishing that purpose. As the result of this investigation, we may now translate the verse as follows. In that day, as a vineyard of wine, afflict her, or, in that day afflict for her the vineyard of wine. It is then a defiance or permission of the enemies of the church to afflict her, with an intimation that in carrying out this idea, the expressions will be borrowed from the figure of a vineyard, as in ch. 5: 1—6. ^.n strictly denotes fermentation, then fermented liquor, and is used as a poetical equivalent to V^. It has been objected that this idea is involved in that of a vineyard, but such apparent pleonasms are common in all languages, as when we speak of a well of water or a coal of fire. Besides D^D seems to have originally had a latitude of meaning not unlike that of orchard in English, and we actually read of a n^T D^D (not a vine yard but an olive-yard) Josh. 15: 5. *rgn may therefore have been added to complete the phrase, or to preclude all doubt as to the meaning, either of which suppositions renders it superfluous to borrow the sense red wine from the Arabic, as Kimchi does, and to assume that the Hebrews set a special value upon this sort. Much less is it necessary to amend the text by reading “i^an DID, pleasant or beloved vineyard. The analogous expression icn “>aiD Amos 5: 11, only makes a change in this place more improbable, not to mention the endless license of conjecture, which would be introduced into the criticism of the text, by adopting the principle that phrases, which partially resemble one another, must be made to do so alto gether. As a closing suggestion, not at all necessary to the exposition, but tending to explain in some degree the form of the original, it may here be added, that the masoretic interpunction may have been intended to suggest an interval of time between the clauses, as if he had said, in that day (shall this come to pass, but in the meantime) afflict her etc.

3. I Jehovah (am) keeping her; every moment I will water her; lest any hurt her, night and day will 1 keep her. That is, in spite of the afflictions which befall her I will still preserve her from destruction. The antecedent of the pronouns is the same as in v. 2, viz. the church or nation considered as a vineyard. &wb literally means at moments or as to moments, but its sense is determined by the analogous Di^pnb every morning. Kimchi takes fi^s as a noun, in which he is followed by some later writers who explain the clause to mean, lest one hurt a leaf of her, or, lest a leaf of her be wanting. But the want of any usage to justify such an explanation of ^’pS1?, and the construction of the same verb in v. 1 with the preposition b§, leave no doubt that the usual explanation is the true one. To visit upon has here its common meaning of inflicting evil upon, but without any special reference to crime or punishment. As the expression is a relative one, it must here be understood according to the context, as denoting fatal or at least excessive injury.

4. Of all the senses put upon this difficult verse, there are only two which can be looked upon as natural or probable. The first may be para phrased as follows; it is not because I am cruel or revengeful that I thus afflict my people, but because she is a vineyard overrun with thorns or briers, on account of which I must pass through her and consume her (i. e. bum them out of her). The other is this: I am no longer angry with my people; oh that their enemies (as thorns and briers) would array themselves against me, that I might rush upon them and consume them. This last is preferred by most of the later writers. The objection that no longer has to be supplied is of little weight. A more important one is that the feminine suffix is referred to the masculine nouns niaflj and n^tfl. To this it may be answered, first, that the feminine in Hebrew often corresponds to the Greek and Latin neuter; and secondly, that a free use of the feminine, where the masculine might have been expected, is characteristic of this passage. See particularly v. 11 below, to which some would add the application of the feminine pronoun throughout the passage to the masculine noun d*n3. This grammatical peculiarity, under other circumstances, would no doubt have been alleged as the mark of a different writer. But if the author of ch. xxiv-xxvii can use expressions in ch. xxvn which he does not use in the others, why may not Isaiah as the author of the whole book exhibit similar peculiarities in different parts of a col lection so extended? It is important that the reader should take every opportunity to mark the arbitrary nature of the proofs, by which the genuine ness of the prophecies has been assailed, and the strange conclusions to which they would lead, if applied with even-handed justice. The objection to the first interpretation of the verse is, that it puts a forced construction on the words *b “pa nan, and explains -^iv ^a in a manner not consistent with the usage of the phrase. Lowth and the others who suppose a dramatic structure are obliged to read nan with the Seventy, and to make this verse a complaint of the vineyard that it has no wall, and an expression of its wish that it had a thorn-hedge, to which God replies that he would still pass through it. Schnurrer however makes even the last clause the words of the vineyard, by arbitrarily supplying when they say, i. e. when my enemy says, I will march against it, etc.

5. Or let him lay hold of my strength and make peace with me; peace let him make, with me. The verbs are properly indefinite (let one takehold etc.) but referring to the enemy described in the preceding verse as thorns and briers, i^sa commonly denotes a strong place or fortress, and is here understood by most interpreters to signify a refuge or asylum, with allusion to the practice of laying hold upon the altar. Vitringa even goes so far as to suppose that the horns of the altar are themselves so called because the strength of certain animals is in their horns. Lowth gives the word the sense of strength afforded or protection. The general meaning is the same in either case, viz. that the alternative presented to the enemy is that of destruction or submission. The abbreviated future is employed as usual to express a proposition. By varying the translation of the futures, the sentence may be made more pointed: let him make peace (or if he will make peace) he shall make peace. But there is no sufficient reason for the variation, and the imperative meaning of ftasi seems to be determined by that of pirn. Of the various senses ascribed to ix (such as unless, oh that if etc.) the only one justified by usage is the disjunctive sense of or. Lowth’s dramatic arrangement of the text assigns the first clause to Jehovah and the second to the vineyard. J. Ah! let her rather take hold of my protection. V. Let him make peace with me! Peace let him make with me. If the thorns and briers of v. 4 be referred to the internal condition of the church, this may be understood as having reference to the church itself, which is then called upon to make its peace with God as the only means of escaping further punishment. Gesenius speaks of the repetition and in version in the last clause as a very imperfect kind of parallelism extremely common in the Zabian books!

6. (In) coming (days) shall Jacob take root, Israel shall bud and blossom, and they shall Jill the face of the earth with fruit. The construction of the first clause in the English Bible (them that come of Jacob shall he cause to take root) is forbidden by the collocation of the words, and by the usage of the verb, which always means to take root. The same remark applies to another construction (them that come to Jacob) which applies the words to the conversion of the gentiles. If there were any sufficient reason for departing from the masoretic interpunction, the sentence might be thus arranged with good effect: they that come (i. e. the next generation) shall take root; Jacob shall bud; Israel shall blossom etc. It is best however to retain the usual construction indicated by the accents. siatfja may possibly agree with biniz^ as a collective; but as the other verbs are singular, the plural form of this appears to imply a reference to both names, though belonging to one person. Or as Kb» is both an active and a neuter verb, it may be construed with the plural noun *:)B, the face of the world shall be filled with fruit, ^n does not mean the land of Israel, but the world, the whole expression being strongly metaphorical.

7. Like the smiting of his smiter did he smite him, or like the slay ing of his slain was he slain 1 Having declared in the preceding verse that Israel should hereafter flourish, he now adds that even in the meantime he should suffer vastly less than his oppressors. Negation, as in many other cases, is expressed by interrogation. Did the Lord smite Israel as he smote his smiters, or slay him as his murderers were slain? This is now commonly agreed to be the meaning, although some of the older writers under stand the verse as asking, whether God smote Israel as his oppressors smote him, which would yield a good sense but one less suited to the context. To make the parallelism perfect, wn (his slain) should be “wh (his slayers); but this, so far from being a defect, is a beauty, since Israel could not have been said to be slain without destroying the force of the comparison. The suffix in I^ITI is to be referred to the oppressors or the enemy.

8. In measure, by sending her away, thou dost contend with her. He removes her by his hard wind in the day of the east wind. The negation implied in the preceding verse is here expressed more distinctly. The Prophet now proceeds to show that Israel was not dealt with like his enemies, by first describing what the former suffered, then what the latter. Israel was punished moderately, and for a time, by being removed out of his place, as if by a transient storm or blast of wind. Of the numberless senses put upon nxDXS, none is so good in itself, or so well suited to the context, as the one handed down by tradition, which explains it as a reduplicated form of nxo strictly denoting a particular dry measure, but here used to express the general idea of measure i. e. moderation. The meaning measure for measure, i. e. in strict justice, is preferred by some, but this would either do away with the comparison with Israel and his enemies, or imply that the latter suffered more than they deserved. The feminine suffixes must be referred to the church or nation as a wife, which agrees well with the verb rta!), used in the law to denote repudiation or divorce. The same verb is also used to signify the sending down of judgments upon men, which sense some prefer in this case, and refer the suffix both in this word and the next to the stroke or punishment. In sending it upon them thou dost strive with it, or try to mitigate it. But the other explanation is more natural, and has the ad vantage of explicitly intimating the precise form of the punishment endured. The change of person in the last clause is abrupt, but of too frequent occurrence to excite surprise.!”i$n is interpreted by Kimchi as synonymous with TW to remove or take away. Its object is to be supplied from the first clause; its subject is Jehovah. The east wind is mentioned as the most tempestuous in Palestine. The day of the east wind is supposed by some to denote the season of the year when it prevails; but it is rather used to intimate the temporary nature of the chastisement, as if he had said, one day when the east wind chanced to blow. The first trn is by some trans lated spirit, and supposed to be expressive of the divine displeasure; but it is not probable that the word would be so soon used in a different sense, and the very repetition adds to the force and beauty of the sentence, a strong wind in the day of the east wind, n^n might be taken as a future proper; but the use of the preterite in the next clause seems to show, that both were meant to be descriptive presents.

9. Therefore (because his chastisement was temporary and remedial in design) by this (affliction) shall Jacob’s iniquity be expiated (i. e. purged away), and this is all (its) fruit (or intended effect), to take away his sin, (as will appear) in his placing all the stones of the (idolatrous) altar like limestones dashed in pieces, (so that) groves and solar images (or images of Ashtoreth and Baal) shall arise no more. The contrast between Israel and Babylon is still continued. Having said that the affliction of the for-* mer was but moderate and temporary, he now adds that it was meant to produce a most beneficent effect, to wit, the purgation of the people from the foul stain of idolatry. ^Q^, though it strictly means shall be atoned for, is here metonymically used to denote the effect and not the cause, purification and not expiation. In the very same way it is applied to the cleans ing of inanimate objects. There is no need of rendering -,3^ either but or because, as the, strict and usual meaning, though less obvious, is perfectly appropriate. As the punishment was moderate and temporary, it was therefore not destructive but remedial. Some understand by this, the act described in the last clause, viz. that of destroying the idolatrous altar. But the preference is always due in such constructions to an antecedent literally going before, i. e. already mentioned. Besides, the destruction of the idols could not be the cause of the purification which produced it, unless we take IBS’1 in the strict sense of atonement, which would be incongruous, and inconsistent with the teachings of Scripture elsewhere, not to mention that in that case the moral effect of the captivity is not described at all. The sense required by the connexion is, not that the breaking of the altars, as a spontaneous act, atoned for Israel’s previous idolatry, but that the exile cured them of that vice, and thereby led to the breaking of the altars. The construction. this is all the fruit of the removal of his sin, affords an incongruous and inappropriate sense, viz. that the only effect of this great revolution was the breaking of the idol altars. The true construction is the one pointed out by the disjunctive accent under “ns, which marks it as the subject of the proposition of which *i&n is the predicate. Some refer the suffix in iasfiaa to Jehovah or the enemy, and the whole clause to his demolition of the altar at the conquest of Jerusalem. But besides the arbitrary change of subject, this would seem to refer the moral improvement of the exiles, not to their afflic- 30

tion, but to the destruction of their idols at Jerusalem, which, even if consistent with the fact, would be irrelevant in this connexion, where the Prophet is showing the beneficent effects of the removal of the people. That the altar is not the altar of Jehovah, is apparent from the mention of the idols in the last clause. (For the meaning of n^aan and D’naiK, vide supra, ch. 17: 8.) Cocceius seems to understand the verse as a prediction that the Jews should no longer pay a superstitious regard to the temple at Jerusalem. By “^”Ws we may either understand some kind of stone commonly used in building, or the fragments of stone and mortar scattered by the demolition of an altar, lapj && may either mean shall not rise again or •shall stand no more, both implying their complete destruction. The prophetic description which this verse involves was fully and gloriously verified in history. ¥

11. In the withering of its boughs (or when its boughs are withered) they shall be broken off, women coming and burning them; because it is not a people of understanding, therefore its creator shall not pity it, and its maker shall not have mercy on it. The destruction of Babylon is still described, but under the figure of a tree, whose branches are withered and cast into the fire. Women are mentioned, not in allusion to the weakness of the instruments by which Babylon was to be destroyed, but because the gath ering of firewood in the east is the work of women and children nivaia is not simply setting on fire, but making a fire of, or burning up. The construction of this clause bears a strong resemblance to the absolute genitive in Greek and ablative in Latin. The last clause contains a double instance of litotes or meiosis. According to the usage of the Scriptures, not wise here means foolish in the strongest sense, and God’s not pitying and having mercy is equivalent to his being very wroth and taking vengeance. “r^j?, which usually means a harvest, in a few places seems to have the sense of a bough or of boughs collectively. The feminine pronouns in the first clause must refer to w or ^S3 understood; the masculine pronouns of the last clause refer of course to D5.

12. And it shall be in that day, that Jehovah shall beat off (or gather in his fruit), from the channel of the river to the stream of Egypt, and ye shall be gathered one by one (or one to another) oh ye children of Israel. To the downfall of Babylon he now adds, as in ch. 11: 1, its most important consequence, viz. the restoration of the Jews. i:::n {$ to beat fruit (and particularly olives) from the tree. (Vide supra, ch. 17: 6). Henderson here translates “JS^, shall have an olive-harvest. The idea meant to be conveyed is that of a careful and complete ingathering. n’l’nsia ^na is explained by some of the older writers as denoting the great valley of the Nile; by others, the Nile itself; but it is now commonly agreed to signify the Wady Elarish, anciently called Rhinocorura, which name is given to it here by the Septuagint. The river is as usual the Euphrates. The simple meaning of the whole expression is, from Assyria to Egypt, both which are expressly mentioned in the next verse. TTIK is properly the construct form, but occurs in several places as the absolute. One of these places is Zech. 11:7, from which it cannot be inferred, however, that this use of the form betrays a later age, for it occurs not only in 2 Sam. 17: 22, but in Gen. 48: 22. Gesenius puts upon this verse the forced construction, that the whole land, as possessed of old by David and Solomon, should be repeopled as abundantly and suddenly as if men fell from the trees like olives. Having given this gratuitous per version of a natural and simple metaphor, he then apologizes for it as offensive to our taste (fur unseyen Ceschmack anstossig), no unfair sample of the way in which the sacred writers are sometimes made to suffer for the erroneous judgment and bad taste of their interpreters. The later writers are almost unanimous in setting this construction of the words aside and giving them their true sense, which is not only the obvious one, but absolutely re quired by the phrase inx insb, which cannot mean the sudden streaming in of a great multitude, but must denote the thorough and complete ingathering of what might otherwise be lost or left behind. The precise sense of this Hebrew phrase is not well expressed by the English one by one, which seems to rep resent the process as a gradual one. It rather denotes one to one, i. e. in our idiom, one to another, all together, or without exception. From what has been already said it will be seen, that the boundaries named are not in tended to define the territory which should be occupied by those returning, but the regions whence they should return, which explanation is confirmed moreover by the explicit terms of the next verse.

13. And it shall be (or come to pass) in that day, (that) a great trumpet shall be blown, and they shall come that were lost (or wandering) in the land of Assyria, and those cast out (or exiled) in the land of Egypt, and shall bow down to Jehovah, in the holy mountain, in Jerusalem. The same event is here described as in the verse preceding, but with a change of figure. What is there represented as a gathering of olives by beating the tree, is now represented as a gathering of men by the blast of a trumpet, which here takes the place of the signal-pole or flag in ch. 11: 12. This variety of forms, in which the same idea is expressed, clearly shows the whole description to be figurative. Assyria and egypt may be either put for foreign countries generally, or with particular allusion to the actual emigration and dispersion of the Jews in these two regions. Assyria may here be used as a comprehensive term, in order to include both the Assyrian and Babylonian deportations. For although the ten tribes never were restored, individual members of them found their way back with the Jews from Babylon. On the whole, however, it is probable that Egypt and Assyria are here named, just as Babylonia and the islands of the sea might have been named instead of them, and just as all these names and others are connected elsewhere, to denote the various lands where Jews were scattered. The emigration of the people, especially after Nebuchadnezzar’s conquests, was of course not confined to their actual deportation by the enemy, nor was the restoration merely that of such as had been thus carried captive, but of all who, in consequence of that catastrophe or any other, had been transferred to foreign parts by exile, flight, or voluntary expatriation. The application of this verse to a future restoration of the Jews can neither be established nor disproved. If such a restoration can be otherwise shown to be a subject of prophecy, this passage may be naturally understood at least as comprehending it. But in itself considered, it appears to contain nothing which may not be naturally applied to events long past, or which has not found in those events an adequate fulfilment. r£fi is an impersonal verb, it shall be blown on the trumpet. According to Gese’nius this verb denotes a single blast, as opposed to a continuous winding of the trumpet. He finds no difficulty in reconciling his hypothesis, as to the date of the prediction, with the mention of Assyria, on the ground that Assyria still formed a part of the Babylonian empire, that the name was used with latitude not only by the classical but the sacred writers, that the Prophet perhaps designedly avoided to name Babylon expressly, and that this verse perhaps was partly taken from an older composition belonging to the times of the Assyrian ascendency. How much hypotheses, as plausible as these, are allowed by Gesenius him self to weigh, in behalf of the genuineness of the prophecies, we have already had occasion to observe, and shall yet have occasion to observe hereafter.