SAMARIA, the crown of Ephraim, shall be cast down by a sudden and impetuous invasion, as a just judgment upon sensual and impious Israel, vs. 1-4. To the remnant of Israel, Jehovah will himself be a crown and a protection, a source of wisdom and of strength, vs. 5, 6. Yet even these imitate the example of apostate Israel, and in their self-indulgence cast off the authority of God and refuse the instructions of his prophet, to their own undoing, vs. 7-13. But their impious contempt of God and self-reliance shall but hasten their destruction. All who do not build upon the sure foundation laid in Zion, must inevitably perish as the enemies of Israel were destroyed of old, vs. 14-22. The delay of judgment no more proves that it will never come, than the patience of the husbandman, and his preparatory labours, prove that he expects no harvest; and the difference of God’s deal ings with different men is no more inconsistent with his general purposes of wrath or mercy, than the husbandman’s treatment of the different grains is inconsistent with his general purpose of securing and enjoying them, vs. 23-29.
This chapter is by most of the late writers joined with ch. 29-33, as belonging to the same date and subject. Ewald without sufficient ground regards it as a later composition. The elaborate attempts, made by Hitzig and others, to determine the precise date of the composition, as they rest on no sufficient data, are of course unsatisfactory and inconclusive. It was obviously written before the downfall of Samaria, but how long before is neither ascertainable nor of importance to the exposition of the prophecy.
| V.I. Woe to the high crown of the drunkards of Ephraim, and the fading flower, his ornament of beauty, which (is) on the head of the fat valley of the wine-smitten. Here, as in ch. 9: 9, 21. 11: 13, we are to understand by Ephraim the kingdom of the ten tribes, by the drunkards of Ephraim its vicious population, and by the lofty crown the city of Samaria, so called as the chief town and the royal residence, but also with allusion to its local situation on an insulated hill overlooking a rich plain or valley. “ It would be difficult to find, in all Palestine, a situation of equal strength, fertility, and beauty combined.” (Robinson’s Palestine, III. 146.) Most interpreters assume a further allusion to the practice of wearing wreaths or garlands at feasts. Lowth and Gesenius suppose this to be the only reason why the men of Ephraim are here called drunkards, q. d. like the crown which drunkards wear at feasts, so is Samaria a crown to Ephraim. Others, with more probability, invert the process, and suppose the figure of a garland to have been suggested by the description of the people as drunkards. Ewald combines the two hypotheses by saying that as Samaria was in its situation like a crown, and as the people were habitually drunk, the city is poetically represented as a reveller’s crown. The reference to literal in toxication appears plain from a comparison of Amos 4: 1, 6: 1,6. Drunkenness is mentioned, not as the only prevalent iniquity, but as a crying one, and one contributing to many others. The moral and spiritual consequences of this vice must be taken into view; but the exclusive reference of the words to spiritual drunkenness, whether delusion or stupidity or both, seems entirely untenable. No such conclusion can be drawn, as we shall see below, from ch. 29: 9, on the authority of which the Septuagint seems to have translated “pn ^n, in the verse before us, peOvovzes avev o/Vor. The same version has confounded ^3$ with ^5& | and rendered it HICF&COTOI. This verse contains three examples of the Hebrew idiom, which, instead of an adjective, uses one substantive to qualify another; crown of elevation for lofty crown, beauty of glory for glorious beauty, and valley of fatnesses for fat valley. Yet no one has alleged this accumulation of peculiar idioms as a proof of bad taste or a later age. Cocceius greatly adds to the beauty of the first clause, by explaining wxa of physical elevation rather than of pride. Hitzig supposes two distinct comparisons, that of the city to a crown, and that of the population to a flower. It is far more natural, however, to apply both clauses to Samaria, and to suppose that the figure of a crown is ex changed for that of a flower, or that the idea throughout the verse is that of a wreath or garland, which is really included under the name crown. The latter member of the first clause is by some construed thus, and the flower whose glorious beauty fades; by others, for example the English Version, (Ephretvm) whose glorious beauty is a fading flower. The analogy of v. 4 seems to show, however, that this member of the sentence is in apposition with r.ixa F^I:S> in the one before it, which construction is moreover the most obvious and simple. The English Version also mars the beauty of the first clause, by making c^fis hl!)3&? not a genitive but a dative. The fading flower implies that the glory of Samaria was transient, with particular allusion to its approaching overthrow by Shalmaneser. Hitzig and Ewald render hi’n as a mere exclamation (O), and suppose the verse to speak of Samaria as already fallen. Vatablus strangely understands by D^ttS-josk the head of the revel ler, drenched with unguents and perfumes. Augusti likewise renders it, dem Sammelplatze der Salben. tj^oaS, as being a mere qualifying term, retains the absolute form, although the phrase, considered as a whole, is in regimen with the one that follows. Examples of a similar construction may be found in ch. 10: 12, and 1 Chron. 9: 13. Wine-smitten or wine-stricken is a strong description of the intellectual and moral effects of drunkenness. Gill’s lively paraphrase is: smitten, beaten, knocked down with it as with a hammer, and laid prostrate on the ground, where they lie fixed to it, not able to get up. Analogous expressions are the Greek oivon).y% and the Latin saucius mero and percussus vino. Barnes sets this verse down as a proof, that the inhabitants of wine countries are as certainly intemperate as those which make use of ardent spirits. |
2. Behold, there is to the Lord (i. e. the Lord has) a strong and mighty one, like a storm of hail, a destroying tempest, like a storm of mighty rushing waters, he has brought (it) to the ground with the hand. As nrn very commonly denotes a proximate futurity, Clericus explains it as equivalent to mox; but in this case it appears to be intended merely to invite attention to the following description, as of a scene or action present to the senses. The oldest editions of the Hebrew text, and a large number of manuscripts, read sn’.m instead of ^DIX. Lowth understands to the Lord as expressing a superlative, like the analogous expression before the Lord in Gen. 10: 9, and translates accordingly, the mighty one, the exceedingly strong one. Henderson supposes b to denote possession and translates of Jehovah. Luther has/row, which is retained by Gesenius, who moreover introduces the verb comes. Hitzig explains the b as denoting the efficient agent, as it is said to do after passive verbs, corresponding to the English by. But this use of the particle is very doubtful, and at least unnecessary in the case before us. The simplest construction, and the one most agreeable to usage is that given by Hendewerk, Ewald, and Knobel, there is to Jehovah, i. e. Jehovah has, has ready, has in reserve. (Vide supra, ch. 2: 12. 22: 5.) The English Version therefore (the Lord hath) is in sense entirely correct. J. D. Michaelis follows the Peshito in taking ptn and “paK as abstracts meaning power and strength. Of those versions which translate them strictly as adjectives, the Vulgate makes them epithets of God himself, (yalidus et fortis Dominus) and so overlooks the b altogether; Jarchi con strues them with wind, Kimchi with day, and others with army understood; Cocceius and Vitringa make them neuter or indefinite, meaning something strong and mighty; the Targum and Rosenmuller construe them with strokes or visitations understood; but most interpreters, including the most recent, understand them as descriptive of a person and apply them directly to Shalmaneser or to the kings of Assyria indefinitely. For tempest of destruction Cocceius has horror excidii, in reference to the meaning of the root -istt) and some of its derivatives. DeDieu reads “irui and translates it, in the gate there is destruction; others, through the gate it enters. But the common version (a destroying storm) may now be looked upon as settled. The last clause is strangely paraphrased by Jonathan so as to mean, that the enemy shall take the people from their own land to another, on account of the iniquity found in their hand. The meaning to the earth or to the ground is clear from ch. 63: 6, and other cases. The Vulgate confounds the phrase with c^ “p.&< (ch. 22: 18), and translates it super terram spatiosam. na is commonly explained to mean with power, as in the Septuagint ($ia)* Gesenius gives this sense to ^ itself; Rosenmuller supposes an ellipsis of strong, Hitzig of outstretched, Hendewerk an allusion to a rod held in the hand. Junius explains the phrase to mean with one hand, i. e. easily. There seems however to be no need of departing from the strict sense of the words as given in the English Version (with the hand), and by Ewald with a needless change of hand to fat. It then completes the picture by describing the crown of Ephraim as torn from his head and thrown upon the ground by the hand of a victorious enemy. To this explanation no objection can be drawn from the previous mention of the hail and rain; for these are mere comparisons, descriptive of the violence with which the enemy should make his attack. It is as if he had said, a strong and mighty enemy, rushing upon you like a hail-storm or a driving rain, shall cast your crown upon the earth with his hand. That the crown is the object of the verb rnsn, may be safely inferred from the foregoing and the following verse, though some interpreters have made it govern the strong and mighty one himself, or the rain and storm with which he is compared, as being sent upon the earth by Jehovah. Though rpsfr should be rendered as a preterite, it does not follow of necessity, that the event described had already taken place, but merely that in this case it is so presented to the Prophet’s view.
3. With the feet shall be trodden the lofty crown of the drunkards of Ephraim. It is cast down by the hand and trampled under foot. This antithesis makes it almost certain that ^ in the preceding verse is to be taken in its proper sense. The plural form of the verb has been variously explain ed. The ancient versions all translate it as a singular. The Rabbins make mas a collective. Lowth reads rvnos in the plural. Cocceius refers the verb to the crown and flower separately. Junius puts drunkards, not in construction but in apposition with crown, which is also the case of the English Version (the crown of pride, the drunkards of Ephraim). Vitringa explains the plural form upon the ground that while the verse literally relates to the downfall of Samaria, it mystically relates to the downfall of Jerusalem. Clericus simply says that the crown meant was that of many persons; Rosenmiiller that the feminine verb is used as a neuter; Hendewerk that it is a pluralis majestaticus, or refers to Samaria as the representative of the other towns of Israel. Gesenius, Hitzig, and Knobel, seem to be agreed that it is an anomalous or rather idiomatic use of the plural for the singular, as in Exod. 1: 10. Jud. 5: 26. Job 17: 16. There is great probability in Henderson’s suggestion, that the ha in all such cases is not a feminine but a paragogic or intensive termination, analogous to that of the antithetic future in Arabic.
4. And the fading flower of his glorious beauty, which is on the head of the fat valley, shall be like a first-ripe Jig, which he that sees it sees, and while it is yet in his hand swallows it. This comparison ex presses the avidity with which the enemy would seize upon Samaria, and perhaps the completeness of its desolation. The fruit referred to is the early fig of Palestine which ripens in June, while the regular season of ingather ing is from August to November, so that the former is regarded as a rarity and eaten with the greater relish. The figure is not here intended to ex press either ease or rapidity of conquest, for the siege of Samaria lasted three years (2 Kings 17: 5). To suppose, with J. D. Michaelis and Henderson, that a siege of this length was considered short compared with those of Tyre and Askelon, seems very forced. The immediate eating of the fruit is only mentioned as a sign of eagerness or greediness. Vitringa under stands the simile as meaning that Samaria when taken would be instantly destroyed, as the first ripe fruit is eaten and not stored away. This would also remove the apparent discrepancy, and is in itself not improbable, although less obvious and natural than the explanation first proposed. The last clause, though singularly worded, evidently means that as soon as one sees it and lays hold of it he swallows it without delay, or as Gill expresses it in homespun English, ’ as soon as he has got it into his hand, he can’t keep it there to look at, or forbear eating it, but greedily devours it and swallows it down at once.’ ‘lisa however does not literally mean as soon as, but while, yet, which renders the expression stronger still, as strictly de noting that he eats it while it is yet in his hand. The Septuagint expresses the same meaning with a change of form, by saying that before one has it in his hand he wishes to devour it. The same version renders iTisiisa BQodgofi&s ovy.ov, and Pliny says, flcus et praecoces habet quas Athenis prodromes vocant. Joseph Kimchi explained to here to mean a branch, and this sense is expressed by Luther, who understands the clause to mean, that the fig spoils or perishes (verdirbt) while one still sees it hanging on the branch. As ^Ti’sa means literally in yet, so fi^aa strictly means in not yet, two ex amples of a peculiar Hebrew idiom in a single sentence. Hitzig, in order to refer this verse to the conquest of Samaria as already past, denies’that the 1 at the beginning is conversive, and refers to other cases where it is simply conjunctive; but in this case its conversive power is determined by the foregoing future ns&^n, whereas in the others there is either no preceding future, or it is contained in a quotation and not in the regular order of dis course. It may also be objected to Hitzig’s hypothesis, that the iin in v. I and the tfiinri di^a in v. 5, both imply that the event described is future. ns^x seems to be a mere euphonic variation of “ps in v. 4. In solving its construction with what follows, Gesenius and most of the late writers take bab to be an adjective used as a substantive and governed regularly by rs^sr, flower of fading for fading flower, of which construction there are some examples elsewhere. (See ch. 22: 24. Prov. 6: 24. 24: 25.) The next clause may then be relatively understood (which was his glorious beauty), or in apposition (the fading flower, his glorious beauty); but Ewald, and many of the older writers, regard this phrase as in regimen with what follows (the fading flower of, etc.). The English Version, as in v. 1, makes bab nsist the predicate (shall be a fading flower and as, etc.). Hendewerk supposes ^ab the fading one to be an epithet of Ephraim himself. “pjD is the fruit-harvest, and especially the ingathering of figs. The modern critics are agreed that the final syllable of iTfiaa, although written in most manuscripts with mappik, is not a suffix but a feminine termination. This name of the early fig is still retained, not only in Arabic but in Spanish, into which it was transplanted by the Moors. Lowth’s decision, that nann na-n is a miserable tautology, is worth about as much as his decision, that Houbigant’s emendation (m&o for run*1) is a happy conjecture. The tautology at all events is no more miserable here than in ch. 16: 10 or 28: 24, not to mention 2 Sam. 17: 9 or Ez. 33: 4, The liberties which critics of this school took with the text, and the language which they used in self-justification, must be considered as having contributed in some degree to the sub sequent revolution of opinion with respect to points of more intrinsic moment.
5. In that day shall Jehovah of Hosts be for (or become) a crown of beauty and a diadem of glory to the remnant of his people. By the remnant of the people Jarchi understands those of the ten tribes who should survive the destruction of Samaria; Knobel the remnant of Judah itself, which should escape Shalmaneser’s invasion expected by the Prophet; Hendewerk the remnant of Israel again considered as one body after the fall of the apostate kingdom; Kimchi the kingdom of the two tribes as the remnant of the whole race. This last approaches nearest to the true sense which appears to be that after Samaria, the pride of the apostate tribes, had fallen, they who still remained as members of the church or chosen people should glory and delight in the presence of Jehovah as their choicest privilege and highest honour. The expressions are borrowed from the first verse but presented in a new combination. As our idiom admits in this case of a close imitation of the Hebrew, the common version which is strictly literal is much to be preferred to Lowth’s (« beauteous crown and a glorious diadem). Of the versions which exchange the nouns for adjectives the most felicitous is Luther’s (eine liebliche Krone und herrlicher Kranz). Instead of Jehovah of Hosts the Targum has the Messiah of Jehovah.
6. And for a spirit of judgment to him thatsitteth in judgment, and for strength to them that turn the battle to the gate. This, which is the common English Version, coincides with that of the latest and best writers. BBIBBJI b? may either be explained as meaning on the judgment-seat, with Calvin (super tribunal), or in judgment, i. e. for the purpose of judging, with Clericus (juris dicundi causa) and most other writers. In illustration of the first sense may be cited Ps. 9: 5, thou sittest on the throne judging right; in illustration of the other, 1 Sam. 20: 24. 30: 24, where bs> aoi? indicates the purpose for which, or the object with respect to which, one sits. The last words of the verse are applied to those who return home safe from war, by Symmachus, the Targum, and the Vulgate (revertentibus de bello ad portam); to those who repel the battle from the gate, by the Peshito, Clericus, and Augusti; but by all the later writers to those who drive the war back to the enemy’s own gates, or as it were carry it into his own country. J. D. Michaelis gives to gate the specific sense of boundary or frontier, which is wholly unnecessary, as it is usual to mention towns, if not their gates, in such connexions. (See for example 2 Sam. 11: 23. 2 Kings 18: 8.) The war meant is therefore wholly defensive. The two great requisites of civil government are here described as coming from Jehovah. Even Gesenius adverts to the fact, that the Spirit of this verse is not a mere influence, but God himself.
7. And (yet) these also (or even these) through wine have erred, and through strong drink have gone astray. Priest and Prophet have erred through strong drink, have been swallowed up of wine, have been led astray by strong drink, have erred in vision, have wavered in judgment. Having predicted in the foregoing verse, that when Ephraim fell Judah should continue to enjoy the protection of Jehovah, the Prophet now describes even this favoured remnant as addicted to the same sins which had hastened the destruction of the ten tribes, viz. sensual indulgence and the spiritual evils which it generates. The drunkenness here mentioned is taken in a moral and spiritual sense, even by Calvin and others who understand v. 1 as re lating to literal intoxication; but this mode of exposition seems entirely arbitrary. All that is necessary is to suppose the moral or spiritual effects of drunkenness to be included. Many interpreters suppose the Prophet to revert at this point to the state of Judah in his own day. Of such transitions there are numerous examples; but the supposition is unnecessary here, where the obvious construction of the passage, as continuous in point of time, yields a good and appropriate sense. The meaning then is that the Jews, although distinguished from the ten tribes by God’s sparing mercy, should nevertheless imitate them in their sins. There is great probability in Henderson’s suggestion, that the prophecy refers to the national deterioration in the reign of Manasseh. The ca at the beginning is emphatic, not only Ephraim but also these or even these. Ewald arbitrarily translates r&s here, and makes the verbs indefinite (taumelt man). The Priest and Prophet are named as the leaders of the people, and as those who were peculiarly bound to set a better example. The reference to judgment in the last clause may be explained, either on the ground that the Priest and Prophet represent the rulers of the people in general, or because the Priests themselves exercised judicial functions in certain prescribed cases (Deut. 17: 9. 19: 17). Junius and others needlessly take “^bin the general sense of ruler. Another not improbable solution is that mMs does not mean judgment in the technical sense, but more generally the declaration of the will of God. There seems to be no sufficient ground for Gesenius’s ex planation of the word as meaning judgment-seat. Maurer gives the same sense, and explains the whole phrase, they stagger (or reel) into the judgmentseat. Most of the late interpreters, instead of the more general sense of erring, wandering, explain njai and nsn as specifically meaning to reel or stagger, which adds to the vividness of the description, but does not seem to be entirely justified by usage. Hendewerk takes “Dai as an abstract mean ing intoxication. J. D. Michaelis translates it beer. Hitzig explains •p’n as meaning in the act of drinking wine; but most other writers with more probability regard both “p and a as here denoting the means or cause of the intoxication. Henderson’s version of isbna (overpowered) leaves out of view the obvious allusion to literal deglutition; for, as Gill suggests, they swallow ed the wine down, and it swallowed them up. Here again Barnes sees his favourite image of a maelstrom. Maurer suggests as a possible construction that the last words may cohere with the first of the next verse and ips have the meaning of the Chaldee and Syriac P&3: they go out of the judgment-seat because all the tables, etc. But “Jft^tt? is a dining-table, not a writingdesk. Nor is there any such improvement in the sense as would seem to justify such a departure from the traditional arrangement of the text. The use of strong drinks was expressly forbidden to the priests in the discharge of their official functions (Lev. 10: 9. Ezek. 44: 21). JixH is commonly explained as a participle used for an abstract noun, seeing or seer {or sight, an explanation which is certainly favoured by the analogous use of nih in v. 18. It is possible however that M^3 may mean in the office, character, or functions of a seer, as Junius explains it (in functione videntis).
8. For all tables are full of vomit, of filth, without a place (i. e. a clean place). Grotius understands by tables the tribunals, and by filth and vomit the injustice practised there, which he says was likewise called sordes by the Latins. How arbitrary such expositions must be, will appear from the fact, that Vitringa makes the tables mean the schools or places of public instruction, and the vomit the false doctrine there taught and again reproduced to the injury of others. The only natural interpretation is that which sup poses tables to denote the places where men eat and drink, and the other terms the natural though revolting consequences of excess. Cocceius, who takes tables in its proper sense, explains the filth to mean corrupt or unprofitable conversation; but this is a most unreasonable mixture of literal and figurative exposition. Whether the intoxication thus described is wholly spiritual, depends of course upon the meaning given to the preceding verse. Most writers suppose tixis to be governed by fc^p, and resolve the phrase into an adjective construction by translating it filthy vomit. Augusti makes the first word the qualifying term, and renders it vomited filth. As the words however are distinct in origin, the best construction is that which makes them both dependent on the verb: full of vomit, full of filth. There is no more need of supplying a preposition before MNS than before a^p. The introduction of the copulative and is needless and impairs the force of the expression. •fcs is properly a noun meaning failure or defect, but is constantly used as a negative adverb or preposition. The sense of this clause is correctly though diffusely given in the English Version (so that there is no place clean). Luther gives the sense, but with a change of form, by rendering it in all places. So too one of the French Versions (tellement que tout en est plein). It is somewhat remarkable that the Septuagint translation of this verse does not exhibit any trace of the original.
9. Whom will he teach knowledge 1 And whom will he make to understand doctrine 1 Those weaned from the milk and removed from the breasts. The Targum makes this a description of Israel as the favoured people to whom the law was exclusively given. In like manner some of the older Christian writers understand it as descriptive of the persons whom Jehovah, or the Prophet acting in his name, would choose as proper subjects of instruction, viz. simple and childlike disciples, who as new-born babes desire the sincere milk of the word (1 Pet. 2: 2). But the children here described are weanlings not sucklings, and on this hypothesis the weaning, which is so particularly mentioned, would have no significancy. Besides, this explanation of the words would not suit the context, either before or after. It is therefore commonly agreed, that the last clause must be taken in a contemptuous or unfavourable sense, as denoting children not in malice merely but in understanding (1 Cor. 14: 20). On this assumption some have explained the verse as meaning, that the priest and the prophet, mentioned in v. 7, were utterly unfit to teach the people, being themselves mere children in knowledge and in understanding. This explanation supposes the singular verbs of the first clause and the plural adjectives of the second to refer to the same persons. Another interpretation makes the words de scriptive not of the teachers but the taught, as being no more fit to receive instruction than a child just weaned. J. D. Michaelis applies the last clause not to their incapacity but to their unwillingness to be instructed, as being long since weaned and now too old to return to the breast. This ingenious explanation has the advantage of taking pw in its usual sense of old, whereas all others give it one derived from pns to remove. But the comparative meaning, which it puts upon the preposition following, is excluded by its obvious use in the foregoing phrase in its proper local sense of from. A new turn was given to the exposition of the verse by Lowth, who, adopt ing an obscure suggestion of Jerome, explains it as the language not of the Prophet but of the wicked men before described, expressing their indignation and contempt at the Prophet’s undertaking to instruct them as if they were mere children. Whom does he undertake to teach? and whom would he make to understand his doctrine? Children weaned from the milk and re moved from the breast? This interpretation has in substance been adopted by all later writers, as affording a good sense and one admirably suited both to the foregoing and the following context. It seems to be liable to only two objections; first, that it gratuitously gives the passage a dramatic form by supposing a new speaker to be introduced without any intimation in the text; and then, that it arbitrarily continues the interrogation through the sentence. The last objection may be obviated by adopting Henderson’s modified construction, which supposes them to ask not whom he would but whom he ought to teach, and then to answer, little children just weaned from the breast, not men of mature age and equal to himself. The other objection, being wholly negative, must yield of course to the positive arguments in favour of an exposition which is otherwise coherent, satisfactory, and suited to the context. Rosenmiiller seems indeed to think that the space between this verse and that before it in the Hebrew manuscripts de notes a change of subject; but these mechanical arrangements of the text can have no authoritative influence upon its exposition. The verbs in the first clause may either be indefinitely construed or referred to the Prophet, without a material change of meaning. SISTQIS properly denotes something heard, and here means that which the Prophet heard from God and the people from the Prophet, in other words divine revelation, whether general or special. There are few examples of a more exact translation than the Vulgate version of this verse, in which the very form of the original is hap pily retained, not excepting the etymological import of the word nrsiatti. So rigid is the version that Montanus has retained it in his own unchanged. Quern docebit scientiaml et quern intelligere faciet audituml ablactatos a lade, avulsos ab uberibus.
10. For (it is) rule upon rule, rule upon rule, line upon line, line upon line, a little here, a little there. The interpretation of this verse varies of course with that of the one before it. Those who understand v. 9 as descriptive of God’s favour to the Jews, explain this in like manner as relating to the abundance of the revelations made to them, including rules and counsels suited to every emergency of life. Henderson’s remark, that the words are often preposterously quoted in application to the abundant possession of religious privileges, rests of course on the assumption that his own interpretation of v. 9 is certainly the true one. But this is far from being so clear as to justify the branding of an opposite opinion with absurdity. Those who apply v. 9 to the incapacity of the people for high attainments in spiritual knowledge, regard v. ] 0 as a description of the elementary methods which were necessary for them. Those who apply v. 9 to the incapacity of the religious teachers of the Jews explain v. 10 as a description of their puerile method of instruction. The words are thus understood by Vitringa and ap plied to the Scribes and Pharisees in the time of Christ. But as all the latest writers make v. 9 the language of the Jews themselves, complaining of the Prophet’s perpetual reproofs and teachings, they are equally agreed in making v- 10 a direct continuation of the same complaint. Aben Ezra ex plains istb is as meaning rule after rule or rule (joined) to rule. Equally good is the construction in the English Version (precept upon precept), except that the word precept is too long to represent the chosen monosyllables of the original. The same objection may be made to Gesenius’s imitation of the paronomasia (Gebot auf Gebot, Verbot auf Verbot), which is much inferior to that of Ewald (Satz zu Satz, Schnur zu Schnur). Paulus, Gesenius, Maurer, Hitzig, and Ewald, understand this peculiar clause as the people’s scoffing imitation of the Prophet’s manner; Koppe, Eichhorn, Umbreit, and Knobel, as the Prophet’s own derisive imitation of their drunken talk. Koppe even goes so far as to imagine that is and ip are here intentionally given as half-formed words, if not as inarticulate unmeaning sounds. But ip is in common use, and 12 occurs in the sense of rule or precept in Hos. 5:11. The Peshito and J. D. Michaelis treat these words as cognate forms and synonymes of rtaphs and wpm *in v. 8, and translate accordingly, *vomit upon vomit, filth upon filth. Michaelis moreover gives T»5t the sense of spot or stain. Both dtti and *W are referred by some to time, and by others to quantity or space; but the simplest and best ex planation seems to be the one given in the English Version (here a little, there a little) as expressive of minuteness and perpetual repetition. Gesenius understands this verse as having reference to the constant additions to the law of Moses in Isaiah’s time, the design of which interpretation is to fortify the doctrine that the Pentateuch, as we now have it, is long posterior to the days of Moses. Rosenmuller, Hitzig, and Knobel, all admit that the allusion is not to the written law, but to the oral admonitions of the Prophets. The Targum contains a diffuse paraphrase of this verse, in which the principal words are retained, but so combined with others as to make the whole relate to the captivity of Israel, as the consequence of his despising the ap pointed place of worship and practising idolatry.
11. For with stammering lips and with another tongue will he speak unto this people. As ftSW ^sb may denote either foreign or scoffing speech (the former being usually described in the Old Testament as stammering), some suppose a double allusion here, to wit, that as they had mocked at the divine instructions by their stammering speech, so he would speak to them in turn by the stammering lips of foreigners in another language than their own. This, though by no means an obvious construction in itself, is preferred by the latest writers and countenanced by several analogous expressions in the subsequent context. Ewald understands by the stammering speech of this verse the inarticulate language of the thunder, which is very unnatural. Of the older writers some explain this verse as descriptive of God’s tenderness and condescension in accommodating his instructions to the people’s capacity as nurses deal with children. Others understand it to mean that through their own perverseness those instructions had been rendered unintelligible and of course unprofitable, so that their divine teacher had become as it were a barbarian to them.
12. Who said to them, this is rest, give rest to the weary, and this is quiet, but they would not hear. The judgments threatened in the foregoing verse were the more evidently just because he who threatened them had warned the people and pointed out to them the only way to happiness. -ittiit should not he taken in the rare and doubtful sense because, but in its proper sense as a relative pronoun. This construction, far from being in tolerably harsh (Henderson), is the only natural and simple one, as well as the only one entirely justified by usage. The pronoun may either be connected with Eft^s in the sense of to whom (for which there is no other Hebrew expression), or referred to Jehovah as the subject of the following verb. Who was it that should speak to them with another tongue? He who had so often said to them, etc. Although admissible, it is not necessary to take nnwa in the local sense of resting place (Ewald). The sense is not, that the true way to rest is to give rest to the weary; the latter ex pression is a kind of parenthesis, as if he had said, this is the true rest, let the weary enjoy it. By this we are therefore to understand, not compassion and kindness to the suffering, but obedience to the will of God in general. This is the true rest which I alone can give, and the way to which I have clearly marked out. Rest is not quiet submission to the yoke of the Assyrians (Hitzig), but peace, tranquillity. To give rest to the weary does not mean to cease from warlike preparations, or to relieve the people from excessive burdens, whether of a civil or religious kind, but simply to reduce to practice the lesson which God had taught them. This is the way to peace, let those who wish it walk therein. In the last clause, would is not a mere auxiliary, but an independent and emphatic verb, they were not willing. The form Kto: (from the root fisjj), though resembling the Arabic analogy, is not a proof of recent date, but rather of the fact, that some forms, which are prevalent in the cognate dialects, were known if not common in the early periods of Hebrew composition.
13. And the word of Jehovah was to them rule upon rule, line upon line, a little here, a little there, that they might go, and fall backwards, and be broken, and be snared, and be taken. The law was given that sin might abound. The only effect of the minute instructions, which they found so irksome, was to aggravate their guilt and condemnation. The terms of the first clause are repeated from v. 10, and have of course the same meaning in both places. The vav at the beginning of the verse is not conversive, as the verbs of the preceding verse relate to past time. There is neither necessity nor reason for translating the particle but, so that, or any thing but and, as it introduces a direct continuation of the foregoing description. SD^ does not simply qualify the following verbs (go on or continue to fall backwards), but expresses a distinct act. ibitis includes the two ideas of stumbling and faj!ing. Some give to ^aaJM the more specific sense, and break their limbs. 1^5 according to its etymology denotes design (in order that), but may here 31 be used simply to express an actual result (so that), unless we refer it, in its strict sense, to the righteous purpose or design of God’s judicial providence.
14. Therefore (because your advantages have only made you more rebellious) hear the word of Jehovah, ye scornful men (literally men of scorn, i. e. despisers of the truth), the rulers of this people which is in Jerusalem (or ye rulers of this people who are in Jerusalem). The “ittfx may refer grammatically either to csrt or to *&&&• This people, here as else where, may be an expression of displeasure and contempt. Jerusalem is mentioned as the seat of government and source of influence. The whole verse invites attention to the solemn warning which follows.
15. Because ye have said (in thought or deed if not in word), we have made a covenant with death, and with hell (the grave, or the unseen world) have formed a league; the overflowing scourge, when it passes through, shall not come upon us, for we have made falsehood our refuge, and in fraud we have hid ourselves. The meaning evidently is, that if their actions were translated into words, this would be their import. There is no need therefore of throwing the words ata and ^pv into a parenthesis (J. D. Michaelis) as the Prophet’s comment on the scoffer’s boast, bifitiu is here nothing more than a poetical equivalent to ma. The textual reading D^^J is probably an old cognate form and synonyme of aim which is given in the margin. The mixed metaphor of an overflowing scourge combines two natural and common figures for severe calamity. Some interpreters apologize for the rhetorical defect of the expression, on the ground that Hebrew ears were not as delicate as ours. Barnes throws the blame upon the English Version, and explains the Hebrew word to mean calamity, but in v. 18 gives the meaning scourge, and says that three metaphors are there combined, which makes it less incredible that two are blended here, nth is properly a participle (seeing) often used as a noun to denote a seer or prophet. Here the connexion seems distinctly to require the sense of league or covenant. That there is no error in the text, may be inferred from the substitution of the cognate form mm in v. 18. Hitzig accounts for the transfer of meanings by the supposition that in making treaties it was usual to consult the seer or prophet. Ewald supposes an allusion to the practice of necromantic art or divination as a safeguard against death, and translates the word orakel. The more common explanation of the usage traces it to the idea of an interview or meeting and the act of looking one another in the face, from which the transition is by no means difficult to that of mutual understanding or agreement. (Calvin: visionis nomine significat id quod vulgo dicimus avoir intelligence.) The marginal reading 1331 was probably intended to assimilate the phrase to that employed in v. 18, but without necessity, since either tense might be used in this connexion to ex press contingency. As the other variations (DITU and alia, Jrrn and win) show that the two verses were not meant to be identical in form, the read ing in the text (“^2?) is probably the true one. xia, when construed directly with the noun, means to come upon, in the sense of attacking or invading. The falsehood mentioned in the last clause is not a false profession of idol atry in order to conciliate the enemy (Grotius), nor idols, nor false prophets, but falsehood or unfaithfulness to God, i. e. wickedness in general, perhaps with an allusion to the falsity or treacherous nature of the hopes built upon it. The translation under falsehood, which is given in the English Bible and in some other versions, is neither justified by usage nor required by the connexion. On the other hand the reflexive version, we have hid ourselves, is much more expressive than the simple passive.
16. Therefore thus saith the Lord Jehovah, Behold 1 lay in Ziona stone, a stone of proof, a corner stone of value of a firm foundation; the believer will not be in haste. To the words of the scoffers are now opposed the words of God himself. Because you say thus and thus, therefore the Lord says in reply what follows. You trust for safety in your own delusions; on the contrary I lay a sure foundation, and no other can be laid. This foundation is neither the temple (Ewald), nor the law (Umbreit), nor Zion itself (Hitzig), nor Hezekiah (Gesenius), but the Messiah, to whom it is repeatedly and explicitly applied in the New Testament (Rom. 9: 33. 10: 11. 1 Peter 2: 6). The same application of the text is made by Jarchi, and according to Raymund Martini (in his Pugio Fidei) by the Targum of Jonathan, although the word Messiah is now wanting in the Chaldee text. The objection, that the stone here mentioned was already laid, has no weight, as the whole theocracy existed with a view to the coming of Messiah. The reference of the words to Hezekiah is an old one, as Theodoret pronounces it an instance of extreme folly (avoiag ea%drqs). Hitzig and Knobel, in order to make Zion itself the sure foundation, make the particle a beth essentiae, as if he had said, you have in Zion (i. e. Zion is to you) a sure foundation. All other writers seem to give the a its proper local sense. The phrase literally rendered stone of proof admits of two interpretations. Calvin understands by it a stone which was to be the test or standard of comparison for others; but the common explanation is more natural, which makes it mean a stone that has itself been proved or tried and found sufficient. A kindred idea is expressed by the phrase i&to iG^ra, a cognate noun and participle, literally meaning a founded foundation, i. e. one en tirely firm and safe. The peculiar form of the original, arising from the repetition of the construct state, has been retained in the translation above given. There is no need of supposing, with Kimchi and others, that mpi is an absolute form in apposition with what follows. The writer’s purpose seems to have been to unite the members of the sentence in construction by a very intimate and close articulation. “pEXE may either be referred specifically to the corner-stone, or taken in the general sense of trusting or believing, sc. God. The objection to the former, that the prophets never exhort men to trust in men or mere localities, is valid as an argument against the reference to Hezekiah, or the temple, or Mount Zion, but not against the reference to the Messiah, who is constantly presented as an object of faith and a ground of trust. Will not be in haste, i. e. will not be impatient, but will trust the promise, even though its execution be delayed. This suits the connexion better than the sense preferred by the modern German writers, will not flee, or have occasion to flee, in alarm or despair. The Septuagint version adopted in the New Testament (shall not be ashamed), agrees essentially with that first given, though it makes more prominent the fact that the believer’s hopes shall not be disappointed. If it be true, as Gesenius thinks probable, that the Hebrew verb, like a kindred one in Arabic, not only meant to hasten but to be ashamed, the Septuagint Version is fully justified, and the authority of the New Testament should be regarded as decisive in favour of that meaning here. But as it cannot be traced in Hebrew usage, it is better to regard the Greek as paraphrasing rather than translating the original expression. At all events, there is no need of reading i^ai with Grotius, Houbigant, and Lowth. The force of the figures in this verse is much enhanced by the statements of modern travellers in relation to the immense stones still remaining at the foundation of ancient walls. (See particularly Robinson’s Palestine, I. 343, 351, 422.)
17. And I will place judgment for a line and justice for a plummet, and hail shall sweep away the refuge of falsehood, and the hiding-place waters shall overflow. The meaning of the first clause is, that God would deal with them in strict justice; he would make justice the rule of his proceedings, as the builder regulates his work by the line and plummet. The English Version seems to make judgment or justice not the measure but the thing to be measured. The verb ate? with the preposition b means to place a thing in a certain situation, or to apply it to a certain use. (See ch. 14: 23.) Hail and rain are here used, as in v. 2 above, to denote the divine visitations. The re&ge and the hiding-place are those of which the scornful men had boasted in v. 15. To their confident assurance of safety God opposes, first, the only sure foundation which himself had laid, and then the utter destruction which was coming on their own chosen objects of reliance. Hitzig thinks that “P^ must have dropped out after IPD, as if there were no examples of even greater variation in the repetitions of the prophets. The truth is that slavish iteration of precisely the same words is rather the exception than the rule.
18. And your covenant with death shall be annulled, and your league with hell shall not stand, and the overflowing scourge—for it shall pass through, and ye shall be for it to trample on. “^£3 seems to be here used in its primary sense of covering, or perhaps more specifically smearing over, so as to conceal if not to obliterate, applied in this case to a writing, the image in the mind of the Prophet being probably that of a waxen tablet, in which the writing is erased by spreading out and smoothing the wax with the stylus. In the last clause, the construction seems to be interrupted. This supposition at least enables us to take both the 13 and the i in their natural and proper sense. Supposing the construction of the clause to be complete, it may be explained as in the English Version, which makes both the words in question particles of time meaning when and then. CEIE is properly a place or object to be trodden down or trampled on. (See ch. 5: 5.) The construction above given is the one proposed by Henderson, except that he has him instead off/, in order to avoid the application of the words to the scourge. There can be no doubt that the idea of a human invader was before the Prophet’s mind; but the mere rhetorical incongruity is not at all at variance with the Prophet’s manner, and is the less to be dissembled or denied, because the scourge will still be described as overflow ing. The attempt to reconcile the language with the artificial rules of composition is in this case rendered hopeless by the combination of expressions which cannot be strictly applied to the same subject. An army might trample, but it could not literally overflow; a stream might overflow, but it could not literally trample down. The time perhaps is coming when, even as a matter of taste, the strength and vividness of such mixed metaphors will be considered as outweighing their inaccuracy in relation to an arbitrary standard of correctness or propriety.
19. As soon (or as often) as it passes through, it shall take, you (or carry you away); for in the morning, in the morning (i. e. every morning), it shall pass through, in the day and in the night, and only vexation (or dis tress) shall be the understanding of the thing heard. The primary mean ing of the noun -n is sufficiency; but the phrase ITS is used in reference to time, both in the sense of as soon and as often as. The meaning may be that the threatened visitation shall come soon and be frequently repeated. There are three interpretations of the last clause, one of which supposes it to mean, that the mere report of the approaching scourge shouTCrfill them with distress: another, that the effect of the report should be unmixed dis tress; a third, that nothing but a painful experience would enable them to understand the lesson which the Prophet was commissioned to teach them. ns*E<r, meaning simply what is heard, may of course denote either rumour or revelation. The latter seems to be the meaning in v. 9, where the noun stands connected with the same verb as here. Whether this verb ever means simply to perceive or hear, may be considered doubtful; if not, the preference is due to the third interpretation above given, viz. that nothing but distress or suffering could make them understand or even attend to the message from Jehovah.
20. For the bed is too short to stretch one’s self, and the covering too narrow to wrap one’s self. This is probably a proverbial description of a perplexed and comfortless condition. Jerome absurdly makes the verse a description of idolatry considered as a spiritual adultery. The D before the last infinitive may be a particle of time, meaning when one would wrap him self in it, which is the explanation given by Cocceius. The connexion with the foregoing verse is this: you cannot fully understand the lessons which I teach you now until your bed becomes too short etc.
21. For lilce Mount Perazim shall Jehovah rise up, like the valley in Gibeon shall he rage, to do his work, his strange work, and to perform his task, his strange task. Into such a condition as that just described they shall be brought, for some of the most fearful scenes of ancient history are yet to be repeated. Interpreters are not agreed as to the precise events referred to in the first clause. The common opinion is, that it alludes to the slaughter of the Philistines described in 2 Sam. 5: 18-25 and 1 Chron. 14: 9-16, in the latter of which places Gibeon is substituted for Geba. The valley meant will then be the valley of Rephaim. Ewald, on the contrary, applies the clause to the slaughter of the Canaanites by Joshua, when the sun stood still on Gibeon and the moon in the valley of Ajalon (Josh 10: 7-15). Still another hypothesis is that of Hendewerk, who ap plies the first part of the clause to the breach of Uzzah (nw y^s) described in 2 Sam. 6: 6-8, and the last to the slaughter of Israel in the valley of Achor (Josh. 7: 1-26). The only argument in favour of this forced interpretation is, that these were cases in which God took vengeance, not of strangers merely, but of his own people. But as there is no mention of a mountain in the case of Uzzah, nor of Gibeon in that of Achan, nor of Perez or Perazim in that of Joshua, neither Hendewerk’s hypothesis nor Ewald’s is so probable as that of Gesenius and most other writers, which refers the whole c^se to the double slaughter of the Philistines by David. That these were foreigners and heathen, only adds to the force of the threatening, by making it to mean that as God had dealt with these in former times, he was now about to deal with the unbelieving and unfaithful sons of Israel. It is indeed not only implied but expressed, that he intended to depart from his usual mode of treating them, in which sense the judgments here denounced are called a strange work, i. e. foreign from the ordinary course of divine providence. The English word strange is here the only satisfactory equivalent to the two Hebrew adjectives “T and n^ss. The idea that punishment is God’s strange work because at variance with his goodness, is not only less appropriate in this connexion, but inconsistent with the tenor of Scripture, which describes his vindicatory justice as an essential attribute of his nature. The unusual collocation of the words “IT and rrjl-? has led some to explain them as the predicates of short parenthetical propositions (strange will be his work etc.). But most interpreters, with greater probability, suppose the adjectives to be prefixed for the sake of emphasis. Like Mount Perazim is a common idiomatic abbreviation of the phrase as in (or at) Mount Perazim.
22. And now scoff not lest your bands be strong; for a consumption and decree (or even a decreed consumption) I have heard from the Lord Jehovah of Hosts} against (or upon) the whole earth. Some versions re tain the reflexive form of the first verb; others make it a frequentative; but it seems to be simply intensive or emphatic. Bands, i. e. bonds or chains, is a common figure for afflictions and especially for penal sufferings. To strengthen these bands is to aggravate the suffering. The last clause represents the threatened judgments as inevitable, because determined and reveal ed by God himself. The form of expression is partly borrowed from ch. 10: 23.
23. Give ear and hear my voice; hearken and hear my speech. This formula invites attention to what follows as a new view of the subject. The remainder of the chapter contains an extended illustration drawn from the processes of agriculture. Interpreters, although agreed as to the import of the figures, are divided with respect to their design and application. Some regard the passage as intended to illustrate, in a general way, the wis dom of the divine dispensations. Others refer it more specifically to the delay of judgment on the sinner, and conceive the doctrine of the passage to be this, that although God is not always punishing, any more than the husbandman is always ploughing or always threshing, he will punish at last. A third interpretation makes the prominent idea to be this, that although God chastises his own people, his ultimate design is not to destroy but to purify and save them. To these must be added, as a new hypothesis, the one maintained by Hitzig and Ewald, who reject entirely the applic^kn of the passage to God’s providential dealings, and apply it to the conduct of men, assuming that the Prophet’s purpose was to hold up the proceedings of the husbandman as an example to the scoffers whom he is addressing. As the farmer does not always plough or always thresh, nor thresh all grains alike, but has a time for either process and a method for each case, so should you cease now from scoffing and receive instruction. To this explanation it may be objected, first, that the comparison contained in the passage does not really illustrate the expediency of the course proposed; and secondly, that even if it did, the illustration would be too extended and minute for a doc trine so familiar and intelligible. The objection to the third interpretation is, that the obvious design for which the comparison is introduced is not to comfort but alarm and warn. The first interpretation is too vague and un connected with the context. The preference is therefore on the whole due to the second, which supposes the prophet to explain by this comparison the long forbearance of Jehovah, and to show that this forbearance was no rea son for believing that his threatening? would never be fulfilled. As the husbandman ploughs and harrows, sows and plants, before he reaps and threshes, and in threshing employs different modes and different implements, according to the nature of the grain, so God allows the actual infliction of his wrath to be preceded by what seems to be a period of inaction but is really one of preparation, and conforms the strokes themselves to the capacity and guilt of the transgressor.
24. Does the ploughman plough every day to sow 1 Does he open and level his ground 1 The common version all day, though it seems to be a literal translation, does not convey the sense of the original expression, which is used both here and elsewhere to mean all the time or always. (Gill: he may plough a whole day together when he is at it, but he does not plough every day in the year; he has other work to do besides plough ing.) The interrogation may be confined to the first clause, and the second construed as an exhortation: (no) let him open and level his ground. But as there is a difficulty then in explaining what is meant by opening the ground, as distinct from opening the furrows with the plough, most interpreters suppose the interrogation to extend through the verse, and make the second clause a repetition of the first, with an additional reference to harrow ing. As if he had said, is the ploughman always ploughing? is he always ploughing and harrowing? Kimchi explains the last clause thus, as an answer to the question in the first: (no) he will loose (his oxen) and harrow his ground.
25. Does he not, when he has levelled the surface of it, cast abroad dill, and scatter cummin, and set wheat in rows, and barley (in the place) marked out, and spelt in his border? That is to say, he attends to all these processes of husbandry successively, with due regard to lime and place, and to the various crops to be produced. The words m^r and “p:o3 are by some explained as epithets of the grain; principal wheat, appointed or sealed barley. Ewald makes them descriptive of the soil; wheat in the best ground, bailey in the rough ground. But the explanation best sustained by usage and analogy is that of Gesenius, who takes “,7303 in the sense of ap pointed, designated, and rmr in that of a row or series. This agrees well with the verb eta as denoting not an indiscriminate sowing, but a careful planting, which is said to be still practised in the oriental culture of wheat, and is thought by Gesenius and others to have been one of the causes of the wonderful fertility of Palestine in ancient times. The suffix in ir.Via probably relates to the farmer, and the noun to the edge of the field in which the other grains are sown or planted. The reference of the suffix to “paw, or to the several preceding nouns, is very forced. Gesenius, in order to retain the supposed paronomasia of mrri niiiis, gives his version of this clause the form of doggerel. (Waizen in Reihen und Gerste hinein.)
26. So teaches him aright his God instructs him. This is the form of the Hebrew sentence, in which his God is the grammatical subject of both the verbs between which it stands. The English idiom requires the noun to be prefixed, as in the common version, and by Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson, asirisb means according to what is right, i. e. correctly. The verse refers even agricultural skill to divine instruction. As parallels the commentators quote, from the Wisdom of Solomon (7: 16), j’tco^/W *VTTO vipiarov fxtiafjit9tp’t *and from the Georgics (I: 157), Prima Ceres ferro mortales vertere terram instituit. Joseph Kimchi thus explains the verse: so he (the husbandman) chastises it (the ground, as) his God teaches him.
27. jFor not with (he sledge must dill be threshed, or the cart-wheel turned upon cummin: for with the stick must dill be beaten, and cummin with the rod. Having drawn an illustration from the husbandman’s regard to times and seasons, he now derives another from his different modes of threshing out the different kinds of grain. The semina infirmiora, as Jerome calls them, are not to be separated by the use of the ponderous sledge or wagon, both of which are common in the east, but by that of the flail or switch, as better suited to their nature. The minute description of the oriental threshing-machines belongs more properly to books of archaeology, especially as nothing more is necessary here to the correct understanding of the verse than a just view of the contrast intended between heavy and light threshing. The “3 at the beginning of the verse might be translated that and understood as introducing an explicit statement as to what it is that God thus teaches him. His God instructs him that etc. This arrangement of the sentences, though certainly not necessary, makes them clearer, and is favoured by the otherwise extraordinary brevity of v. 26, as well as by its seeming interruption of the intimate connexion between vs. 25 and 27. An objection to it, drawn from the analogy of v. 29, will be stated in the ex position of that verse. 490
28. Bread-corn must be crushed, for he will not be always threshing it; so he drives the wheel of his cart (upon it), but with his horsemen (or horses’) he does not crush it. The sense of this verse is obscured by an apparent inconsistency between the opening and the closing words. Ewald cuts the knot by reading ttj’isp in the former place. Umbreit takes cnb in its proper sense of bread, and understands the clause to mean that bread is broken by the teeth! Others make the first clause interrogative, and thus conform it to the express negation in the last clause. The translation above given supposes a climax beginning in v. 27 and completed here. Dill and cummin must be threshed out with the flail; wheat and barley may be more severely dealt with: they will bear the wheel, but not the hoofs of horses. The first words and the last are then in strict agreement; bread-corn must be bruised, but not with horses’ hoofs. This is merely suggested as an additional attempt to elucidate a passage in detail, the general sense of which is clear enough. The reading TO-IB his hoofs (i. e. the hoofs of his cattle) is unnecessary, as the use of uns in the sense of horse appears to be admitted by the best philological authorities. The historical objection, that the horse was not in common use for agricultural purposes, seems to be likewise regarded by interpreters as inconclusive.
29. Even this (or this also) from Jehovah of Hosts comes forth; he is wonderful in counsel, great in wisdom. The literal translation of the last clause is, he makes counsel wonderful, he makes wisdom great. The hiphils may however be supposed to signify the exhibition of the qualities denoted by the nouns, or taken as intransitives. The antithesis which some suppose the last clause to contain between plan and execution (wonderful in counsel and excellent in working) is justified neither by the derivation nor the usage of n^n. As to the meaning of the whole verse, some suppose that the preceding illustration is here applied to the divine dispensations; others, that this is the conclusion of the illustration itself. On the latter hypothesis, the meaning of the verse is, that the husbandman’s treatment of the crop, no less than his preparation of the soil, is a dictate of experience under divine teaching. In the other case, the sense is that the same mode of proceeding, which had just been described as that of a wise husbandman, is also practised by the Most High in the execution of his purposes. Against this, and in favour of the other explanation, it may be suggested, first, that coming forth from God is a phrase not so naturally suited to ex press his own way of acting as the influence which he exerts on others; secondly, that this verse seems to correspond, in form and sense, to v. 27, and to bear the same relation to the different modes of threshing that v. 27 does to the preparation of the ground and the sowing of the seed. Having there said of the latter, thai the husbandman is taught of God, he now says of the former, that it also comes forth from the same celestial source. This analogy may also serve to show that v. 27 is not a part of v. 28, and thereby to make it probable that h3 at the beginning of the latter is to be translated for, because. According to the view which has now been taken of v. 29, the general application of the parable to God’s dispensations is not formally expressed, but left to the reflection of the reader.
