THIS chapter contains an exposure of the sin and folly of ancient Israel in seeking foreign aid against their enemies, to the neglect of God, their rightful sovereign and their only strong protector. The costume of the prophecy is borrowed from the circumstances and events of Isaiah’s own times. Thus Egypt is mentioned in the first part of the chapter as the chosen ally of the people, and Assyria in the last part as the dreaded enemy. There is no need however of restricting what is said to that period exclusively. The presumption, as in all such cases, is that the description was designed to be more general, although it may contain allusions to particular emergencies. Reliance upon human aid, involving a distrust of the divine promises, was a crying sin of the ancient church, not at one time only, but throughout her history. To denounce such sins, and threaten them with condign punishment, was no small part of the prophetic office. The chronological hypotheses assumed by different writers with respect to this chapter are erroneous only because too specific and exclusive. Thus Jerome refers it to the conduct of the Jews in the days of Jeremiah; Kimchi to their conduct in the reign of Ahaz; Jarchi to the conduct of the ten tribes in the reign of Hoshea. Vitringa takes a step in the right direction by combining Israel and Judah as included in the censure. Some of the later writers assume the existence of an Egyptian party in the reign of Hezekiah, who negotiated with that power against the will or without the knowledge of the king. But even if this fact can be inferred from Rabshakeh’s hypothetical reproach in ch. 36: 6, it does not follow that this was the sole subject or occasion of the prophecy. It was clearly intended to reprove the sin of seeking foreign aid without divine permission; but there is nothing in the terms of the reproof confining it to any single case of the offence. The chapter may be divided into three parts. In the first, the Prophet shows the sin and folly of relying upon Egypt, no doubt for protection against Assyria, as these were the two great powers between which Israel was continually oscillating, almost constantly at war with one and in alliance with the other, vs. 1-7. In the last part, he describes the Assyrian power as broken by an immediate divine interposition, precluding the necessity of any human aid, vs. 27-33. In the larger intervening part, he shows the connexion of this distrust of God and reliance on the creature with the general character and spiritual state of the people, as unwilling to receive instruction, as dishonest and oppressive, making severe judgments necessary as a prelude to the glorious change which God would eventually bring to pass, vs. 8-26.
1. Woe to the disobedient children, saith Jehovah, (so disobedient as) to form (or execute) a plan and not from me, and to weave a web, but not (of) my Spirit, for the sake of adding sin to sin. Here, as in ch. 1: 2, Israel’s filial relation to Jehovah is particularly mentioned as an agravation of his ingratitude and disobedience. The infinitives express the respect in which, or the result with which, they had rebelled against Jehovah. The relative construction of the English Version does not materially change the sense. The phrase fi3&« Tjbib has been variously explained. The Peshito makes it mean to pour out libations, probably with reference to some ancient mode of ratifying covenants, and the Septuagint accordingly translates it snoifoare (svv&^ag. Cocceius applies it to the casting of molten images (ad fundendum fusile), DeDieu to the moulding of designs or plots. Kimchi and Calvin derive the words from the root to cover, and suppose the idea here expressed to be that of concealment. Ewald follows J. D. Michaelis in making the phrase mean to weave a web, which agrees well with the con text, and is favoured by the similar use of the same verb and noun in ch. 25: 7. Knobel’s objection, that this figure is suited only to a case of treachery, has no force, as the act of seeking foreign aid was treasonable under the theocracy, and the design appears to have been formed and executed secretly. (Compare ch. 29: 15, where the reference may be to the same transaction.) Vitringa, who refers the first part of the chapter to the kingdom of the ten tribes, supposes the sin of seeking foreign aid to be here described as added to the previous sin of worshipping the golden calf. Hitzig supposes the first sin to be that of forsaking Jehovah, the second that of seeking human aid. The simple meaning seems however to be that of multiplying or accumulating guilt, d^-mo is strongly rendered by the Septuagint apostates, and by the Vulgate deserters, both which ideas may be considered as involved in the translation rebels or rebellious, disobedient or refractory.
2. Those walking to go down to Egypt, and my mouth they have not consulted (literally asked), to take refuge in the strength of Pharaoh, and to trust in the shadow of Egypt. Motion towards Egypt is commonly spoken of in scripture as downward, o^fi is commonly explained to mean setting out or setting forward; but DeWette and Ewald omit it altogether, or con sider it as joined with the other verb to express the simple idea of descent. Hendewerk takes mouth as a specific designation of the Prophet, which is wholly unnecessary. To ask the mouth, or at the mouth, of the Lord is a phrase used elsewhere in the sense of seeking a divine decision or response.
3. And the strength of Egypt shall be to you for shame and the trust in the shadow of Egypt for confusion, b n^ may here be taken in its frequent sense of becoming or being converted into. The common ver sion of the first 1 by therefore changes the idiomatic form of the original without necessity.
4. For his chiefs are in Zoan, and his ambassadors arrive at Hanes, For the site and political importance of Zoan or Tanis, see the commentary on ch. 19: 11. For wai bsn, the Seventy seem to have read isa*” Ban, they shall labour in vain. This reading is also found in a few manuscripts and approved by Lowth and J. D. Michaelis. The latter thinks it possible how ever that &an may denote the Pyramids. The Targum changes Hanes into Tahpanhes, and Grotius regards the former as a mere contraction of the latter, which is also the conjecture of Champollion. Vitringa identifies the san of Isaiah with the *Awaig of Herodotus. This combination is approved by Gesenius and the later writers, who moreover identify the Greek and Hebrew forms with the Egyptian Hnes and the Arabic Ehnes. The city so called was in Middle Egypt, south of Memphis. The older writers almost unanimously understand this verse as relating to the envoys of Israel and Judah. Clericus indeed refers the suffixes to Egypt or to Pharaoh, but without a change of meaning, as he supposes the Egyptian envoys to be such as were sent to meet the others, or to convey the answer to their applications. But some of the late interpreters adopt the same construction with a total change of meaning. Hitzig regards the verse as a contemptuous description of the narrow boundaries and insignificance of Egypt. His (Pharaoh’s) princes are in Zoan (the capital), and his heralds (the bearers of his royal mandates) only reach to Hanes (a town of middle Egypt). The unnatural and arbitrary character of this interpretation will appear from the curious fact that Ewald, who adopts the same construction of the pro nouns, makes the whole verse a concession of the magnitude and strength of the Egyptian monarchy. Although his princes are at Zoan (in Lower Egypt) and his heralds reach to Hanes (much further south). Knobel objects to these constructions, that the phrase, his princes are at Zoan, is unmeaning and superfluous. He therefore resuscitates the Septuagint reading iw csrtj and makes the whole mean, that the chiefs of Pharaoh are still at Zoan (i. e. remain inactive there), and that his messengers or commissaries labour in vain to raise the necessary forces. From these ingenious extra vagances it is satisfactory to fall back on the old interpretation, which is also that of Gesenius, Umbreit, and Hendewerk, with this modification in the case of the latter, that he supposes Zoan and Hanes to be mentioned as the royal seats of Sevechus and Tirhakah, to both of whom the application may have been addressed.
5. All are ashamed of a people who cannot profit them, (a people) not for help and not for profit, but for shame, and also for disgrace. Lowth inserts ex after *>a, on the authority of four manuscripts. But the 13 is itself here equivalent to an adversative particle in English, although it really retains its usual meaning, for, because. The Hebrew construction is, they are not a profit or a help, for (on the contrary) they are a disgrace and a reproach. Gesenius regards la^aon as an incorrect orthography for izrsirt; but Maurer and Knobel read it fl^K5h, and assume a root tixa synonymous with fc5ia. The b? in the first clause has its very frequent meaning of con cerning, on account of.
6. The burden of the beasts of the south, in a land of suffering and distress, whence (are) the adder and the fiery flying serpent; they are car rying (or about to carry) on the shoulder of young asses their wealth, and on the hump of camels their treasures, to a people (or for the saJce of a people) who cannot profit. The Prophet sees the ambassadors of Israel carrying costly presents through the waste howling wilderness, for the purpose of securing the Egyptian alliance. Gill applies the description to the emigration of the Jews into Egypt in the days of Jeremiah. This may be alluded to, but cannot be the exclusive subject of the passage. The Septuagint translates stoa by OQO.<JI<S, and converts the first clause into a title or inscription. Schmidius and J. H. Michaelis regard this as the beginning of a special prophecy, or subdivision of the greater prophecy, against the southern Jews who were nearest to Egypt. Henderson also thinks it incon trovertible, that this is the title or inscription of the record which the Prophet is afterwards commanded to make. The latest German writers, as might have been expected, reject the clause as spurious, Hendewerk and Ewald expunging it wholly from the text, while the others include it in brackets as of doubtful authenticity. These critical conclusions all involve the supposition, that some ancient copyist or reader of the Prophet, imagining a new subdivision to begin here, introduced this title, as the same or another hand had done inch. 13: L. 15: 1. 17: 1. 19: 1. 21: 1, 11, 13. 22: 1. 23: I. The number of these alleged interpolations, far from adding to the probability of the assumption, makes it more improbable in every instance where it is resorted to. In this case, there is nothing to suggest the idea of a change of subject or a new division, if the title be omitted. How then can the interpolation be accounted for? If it be said, that we are not bound to account for the absurdity of ancient interpolators, the answer is that we are just as little bound to believe in their existence. The truth appears to be, that the interpretation of this clause as an inscription is entirely imaginary. Even in the other cases cited, we have seen that the assumption of a formal title may be pushed too far. But here it is wholly out of place. It is surely an unreasonable supposition, that the Prophet could not put the word KtBn at the beginning of a sentence without converting it into a title. The most natural construction of the first clause is to take it as an exclamation (oh the burden of the beasts I what a burden to the beasts!)—or as an absolute nominative (as to the burden of the beasts). The beasts meant are not the lions and the vipers of the next clause (Hitzig), but the asses and the camels of the one following, called beasts of the south because travelling in that direction. The land meant is not Egypt (Vitringa), though described by Ammianus Marcellinus as peculiarly abounding in venomous reptiles (serpentes alit innumeras, ultra omnem perniciem saevientes, basiliscos et amphisbaenas et scytalas et acontias et dipsadas et viperas aliasque complures), nor the land of Israel as the nurse of lion-like men or heroes (J. D. Michaelis), but the interjacent desert described by Moses in similar terms (Deut. 1: 19. 8: 15). The preposition 2, meaning strictly in, might in this connexion denote either through or into, but the former seems to be required by the context. It follows of course that npisi rm -px cannot mean a land of oppression, in allusion either to the bondage of the Hebrews or to that of the natives (Vitringa), nor a land compressed and narrow in shape (Clericus), but must denote a land of suffering, danger, and privation, such as the great Arabian desert is to travellers. Those who make “px to mean Egypt explain tsn^a as referring rather to the people than the country; but if the land referred to is the desert, it must be explained, with the latest German writers, as either a poetical license or a grammatical anomaly. The general meaning of the phrase, as all agree, is whence. It is also agreed that two designations of the lion are here used; but how they mutually differ is dis puted. Calvin has leo et leo major; Cocceius, leo animosus et annosus. Luther makes the distinction one of sex (lions and lionesses), which is now regarded as the true distinction, though the first of the two Hebrew words, since Bochart, has been commonly explained to mean the lioness. So Clericus, leacna et leo violentus, and all the recent writers except Hitzig, who makes both the words generic (Leu und Lowe), nrsx may be trans lated adder, viper, asp, or by any other term denoting a venomous and deadly serpent. For the meaning of r,Bisa spu:, see the note on ch. 14: 29.
The lions and vipers of this verse are not symbolical descriptions of the Egyptians (Junius), but a poetical description of the desert. Clericus makes even niTsra (Behemoth) an emblem of Egypt, and translates the clause (as an inscription), oratio pronunciata de meridiano hippopotamo! tpv,? or n-ni3>, which Lowth translates too vaguely young cattle, denotes more specifically young asses, or it may be used as a poetical designation of asses in general. That nfcm signifies the hump or bunch of the camel, as explained in the Vulgate (super gibbum cameli), the Peshito, and the Targum, is clear from the context, but not from etymology, as to which interpreters are much divided. The old Jews traced the word to roan honey (because sometimes applied for medicinal purposes), while Henderson ex plains it by an Arabic analogy as meaning the natural furniture of the animal. The bs before as does not seem to be a mere equivalent to b«, but rather, as in v. 5, to mean on account of, for the sake of.
7. And Egypt (or the Egyptians) in vain and to no purpose shall they help. Therefore I cry concerning this, their strength is to sit still. This, which is the common English Version of the last clause, is substantially the same with Calvin’s. Later writers have rejected it, however, on the ground, that srn, according to etymology and usage, does not mean strength but indolence. On this supposition, the Vulgate version would be more cor rect (superbia tantum est, quiesce), nattj being then explained as the imperative of raaj to cease, to rest. This construction is exactly in accordance with the masoretic accents, which connect on with am and disjoin it from psi!3. But the last word, as now pointed, must be either a noun or an in finitive. Since am occurs elsewhere as a name of Egypt, most of the modern writers take ipfc^p in the sense of naming, which is fully justified by usage, and understand the clause as contrasting the pretensions of Egypt with its actual performances, the two antagonist ideas being those of arrogance or insolence and quiescence or inaction. Thus Gesenius translates it, Grossmaul das still sitzt, and Barnes, the blusterer that sitteth still. Besides the obscurity of the descriptive epithets, the construction is perplexed by the use, first of the feminine singular (nst), and then of the masculine plural (on),both in reference to one subject. The common solution is that the former has respect to the country, and the latter to the people. The general meaning of the clause may be considered as determined by the one before it. ban and p^-i are nouns used adverbially. Ewald introduces in the last clause a paronomasia which is not in the original (Trotzige das istFrostige).
8. And now go, write it with them on a tablet and inscribe it in a book, and let it be for a future day, for ever, to eternity. This, like the similar precaution in ch. 8; J, was intended to verify the fact of the prediction after the event, tons seems to include the ideas of before them and among them. Knobel infers rom this command, that the Prophet’s house must have been upon the street or square, in which the prediction was orally delivered. Most interpreters suppose two distinct inscriptions to be here required, one on a solid tablet for public exhibition, and the other on parch ment or the like for preservation. But Gesenius more naturally understands the words rrte and ~£r as equivalents, which is the less improbable, because if a distinction were intended, ^Tr *would no doubt have been connected, not with “iso but with mb. Some of the ancient versions exchange *i? for **iy (a testimony for ever), which is adopted by several interpreters on the authority of Deut. 31: 19, 21, 26, where the same combination occurs. Ewald adds that the idea of testimony is essential, and Knobel that the concurrence of *&/* would be cacophonous.
9. For a people of rebellion (a rebellious people) is It, lying (or de nying) children, children (who) are not, willing to learn the law of Jehovah. By denying children Kimchi understands such as deny their father, Gill such as falsely pretend to be his children. Hitzig gives the phrase a more specific meaning, as denoting that they would deny the fact of the prediction without some such attestation as the one required in the preceding verse. The English Version makes this verse state the substance of the inscription, that this is a rebellious people etc.
10. Who say to the seers, Ye shall not see, and to the viewers, ye shall not view for us right things; speak unto us smooth things, view deceits. There is great difficulty in translating this verse literally, as the two Hebrew verbs, meaning to see, have no equivalents in English, which of themselves suggest the idea of prophetic revelation. The common version (see not, prophesy not), although it conveys the true sense substantially, leaves out of view the near relation of the two verbs to each other in the original. In the translation above given, view is introduced merely as a synonyme of see, both being here used to express supernatural or prophetic vision. With this use of the verbal noun (seer) we are all familiar through the English Bible. Clericus translates both verbs in the present (non mdetis), which would make the verse a simple denial of the inspiration of the prophets, or of the truth of their communications. Most interpreters prefer the imperative form, which is certainly implied; but the safest because the most exact construction is Luther’s, which adheres to the strict sense of the future (ye shall not see). This is of course not given as the actual language of the people, but as the tendency and spirit of their acts It is an ingenious but extravagant idea of Cocceius, that the first clause of this verse condemns the prohibition of the Scriptures by antichristian teachers, who say to those seeing ye shall not see etc. Even if the first clause could be naturally thus explained, the same sense could not possibly be put upon the others. Smooth things or words is a common figurative term for flatteries. Luther’s expressive version is, preach soft to us.
11. Depart from the way, swerve from the path, cause to cease from before us the Holy One of Israel. The request is not (as Gill suggests) that they would get out of the people’s way, so as no longer to prevent their going on in sin, but that they would get out of their own way, i. e. wander from it or forsake it. This way is explained by Gesenius to be the way of piety and virtue, but by Hitzig more correctly as the way which they had hitherto pursued in the discharge of their prophetic functions. Cause to cease from before us, i. e. remove from our sight. It was a common opinion with the older writers, that this clause alludes to Isaiah’s frequent repetition of the name Holy One of Israel, and contains a request that they might hear it no more. But the modern interpreters appear to be agreed that the allusion is not to the name but the person. Cocceius understands the clause as relating to the antichristian exclusion of Christ from the church as its sanctifier. The form of the preposition ( 3^) is peculiar to this place.
12. Therefore thus saith the Holy One of Israel, Because of your rejecting (or despising) this word, and (because) ye have trusted in oppression and perverseness, and have relied thereon. On the hypothesis already stated, that the people had expressed a particular dislike to the title Holy One of Israel, Piscator supposes that the Prophet here intentionally uses it, as if in defiance of their impious unbelief. Gill even thinks that this word may mean this name. But all this seems to limit the meaning of the terms too much. The word here mentioned is no doubt the law of v. 9, both being common epithets of revelation generally, and of particular divine communications. (See the note on ch. 2: 3.) J. D. Michaelis ingeniously converts the last clause into a description of Egypt, as itself oppressed and therefore unfit to be the protector of Israel. But in order to extract this meaning from the words, he is forced into an arbitrary change of the point ing. Houbigant and Lowth instead of par read ttp?, thus making it synonymous with Tibs. The latter word seems to denote perverseness or moral obliquity in general. It is rendered in a strong idiomatic form by Hitzig (Verschmitztheit) and Ewald (Querwege).
13. Therefore shall this iniquity be to you like a breach falling (or ready to fall) swelling out in a high wall, whose breaking may come suddenly, at (any) instant. J. D. Michaelis, by another arbitrary change of text, reads this help instead of this iniquity. The image is that of a wall which is rent or cracked and, as Gill says, bellies out and bulges. The verse is ex plained with great unanimity by the interpreters until we come to Hitzig, who puts an entirely new face upon the simile. He objects with some truth to the old interpretation that it assumes without authority a future meaning of the participle bsb, and that it makes the breach or chasm swell and fall instead of the wall itself. He then infers, from the use of “j^B in 2 Sam. 5: 20 and of nson in Isaiah 64: 1, that the former here denotes a torrent (Waldstrom), falling upon (i. e. attacking, as in Josh. 11: 7), and swelling against a high wall. The weakest point in this ingenious combination is the necessity of construing bab with 3, from which it is separated by was. To remove this difficulty, Hendewerk, adopting the same general construction, takes the whole phrase bsi ys in the sense of waterfall. The later German writers, Ewald, Umbreit, and Knobel, have returned to the old interpretation. Ewald, however, to remove the first of Hitzig’s objections, applies bab not to the falling of the wall, but to the sinking or extension downwards of the breach itself (ein sinkender Riss); while Knobel gains the same end by explaining ]na to be not the aperture or chasm but the portion of the wall affected by it. This last explanation had been previously and independently proposed by Henderson, who says that the word here means properly the piece forming one side of the breach or rent. But this is really a mere concession that the strict and usual sense is inappropriate. With respect to the main point, that the figures were intended to express the idea of sudden destruction, there is and can be no diversity of judgment. In favour of the old interpretation, as compared with Hitzig’s, it may be suggested, that the former conveys the idea of a gradual yet sudden catastrophe, which is admirably suited to the context. It is also true, as Umbreit well observes, that the idea of a downfall springing from internal causes is more appropriate in this connexion than that of mere external violence how ever overwhelming.
14. And it (the wall) is broken like the breaking of a potter’s vessel (any utensil of earthen ware), broken unsparingly (or without mercy), so that there is not found in its fracture (or among its fragments) a sherd to take up fire from a hearth, and to skim (or dip up) water from a pool. The first words strictly mean, he breaks it, not the enemy, as Knobel sup poses, which would imply an allusion to the breach made in a siege, but he indefinitely, i. e. some one (Cocceius: aliquis franget), which may be resolved into a passive form as in the Vulgate (comminuetur). It is wholly gratuitous to read ^^^% The phrase M:rn xb rvirs exhibits a construction wholly foreign from our idiom and therefore not susceptible of literal translation. The nearest approach to it is, breaking he spareth not (or will not spare). Sherd is an old English word, now seldom used, meaning a broken 33 piece of pottery or earthenware, and found more frequently in the compound form of potsherd. A potter’s vessel, literally, vessel of the potters, except in a single instance, is always applied to the taking up of fire. is strictly to remove the surface of a liquid, but may here have greater latitude of meaning. For aqa the English Version has pit, Lowth cistern, and most other writers well; but in Ezek. 47: 11 it denotes a marsh or pool. Ewald supposes a particular allusion to the breaking of a poor man’s earthen pitcher, an idea which had been suggested long before by Gill: as poor people are wont to do, to take fire from the hearth and water out of a well in a piece of broken pitcher.
15. For thus saith the Lord Jehovah, the Holy One of Israel, in returning (or conversion) and rest shall ye be saved, in remaining quiet and in confidence shall be your strength; and ye would not (or were not willing). This overwhelming judgment would be strictly just because they had been fully admonished of the way of safety. Here again Gill supposes a peculiar significance in the repetition of the Holy One of Israel. The rabbinical explanation of rosiaS as a derivative from -tf? is gratuitous and certainly not justified by Num. 10:36. Grotius understands by returning retrocession from their unlawful measures and negotiations. The Targum gives it the more general sense of returning to the law, which agrees in substance with the common explanation of the term as meaning a return to God by repentance and conversion. (For the spiritual usage of the verb, see the note on ch. 1: 27.) This sense Gesenius mentions as admissible although he prefers to assume a hendiadys, by returning to repose, which is needless and unnatural. Hitzig’s idea that the word denotes returning to one’s self may be considered as included in the other.
16. And ye said, No, for we will flee upon horses; therefore shall ye flee; and upon the swift will we ride; therefore shall your pursuers be swift. Calvin points out a double sense of 0*13 in this verse, and the modern interpreters express it in their versions, the most successful being that of Ewald, who employs the kindred forms fliegen and fliehen. This can be perfectly copied in English by the use of fly and flee; but it may be doubt ed whether this is not a mere refinement, as the Hebrew verb in every other case means to flee, and the hope here ascribed to the people is not simply that of going swiftly, but of escaping from the dangers threatened. In bg and ^£, the primary sense of lightness is very often merged in that of rapid motion. Knobel discovers an additional paronomasia in n^&io, which he makes perceptible in German by employing the three words, fliegen, fliehen, fluchtigen. Many of the older writers use a comparative expression in the last clause after the example of the Vulgate (velociores). Grotius gives tn the specific sense of exsulabitis.
17. One thousand from before the rebuke (or menace) of one, from before the rebuke of five shall ye flee, until ye are left like a mast (or pole) on the top of the mountain, and like the signal on the hill. From the use of the definite article in the last clause, Junius and Tremellius needlessly infer that the meaning is this mountain, this hill, meaning Zion. The pleonastic form one thousand is not urged by any of the German writers as a proof of later date. To supply a particle of comparison (as one) is of course entirely unnecessary. To complete the parallelism, and to conform the expression to Lev. 26: 8, Deut. 32: 31, Lowth supposes rciri (a myriad) to have dropped out of the text, and finds a trace of this original reading in the Septuagint version nolloi. Instead of a definite expression, Clericus and others supply omnes. The former emendation, al though not adopted, is favoured by Gesenius; but the later writers reject both, not only as unnecessary, but because, as Hitzig well observes, such a change would disturb the connexion with what follows, the sense being plainly this, that they should flee until they were left etc. -ftn is taken as the name of a tree by Augusti (Tannenbaum) and Rosenmuller (pinus),by Gesenius and Ewald as a signal or a signal-pole. In the only two cases where it occurs elsewhere, it has the specific meaning of a mast. The allusion may be simply to the similar.appearance of a lofty and solitary tree, or the common idea may be that of a flag-staff, which might be found in either situation. The word beacon, here employed by Gataker and Barnes, is consistent neither with the Hebrew nor the English usage. The idea of the last clause, as expressed by Hitzig, is that no two of [hem should remain together. (Compare 1 Sam. 11: 11.)
18. And therefore will Jehovah wait to have mercy upon you, and therefore will he rise up (or be exalted) to pity you, for a God of judgment is Jehovah; blessed are all that wait for him. The apparent incongruity of this promise with the threatening which immediately precedes, has led to various constructions of the first clause. The most violent and least satisfactory is that which takes “jab in the rare and doubtful sense of but or nevertheless. This is adopted among recent writers by Gesenius, Barnes, Henderson. Another solution, given by Vitringa, leaves ^b to be under stood as usual, but converts the seeming promise into a threatening, by explaining nsrn will delay (to be gracious), and din; will remain afar off (Jarchi: pr^P1)’ But tms ls *certainly not the obvious and natural meaning of the Prophet’s words, ron elsewhere means to wait with earnest expectation and desire, and the Kal is so used in the last clause of this very verse. This objection also lies against Maurer’s explanation of the clause as relating to delay of punishment. Hitzig supposes the connexion to be this: therefore (because the issue of your present course must be so fatal) he will wait or allow you time for repentance. Knobel applies the whole to God’s intended dealings with them after the threatened judgments should have been endured. On the whole, the simplest and most probable conclusion seems to be that “,3V has its usual meaning, but refers, as in many other cases, to a remoter antecedent than the words immediately before it. As if the Prophet paused at this point and reviewing his denunciations said. Since this is so, since you must perish if now dealt with strictly, God will allow you space for repentance, he will wait to be gracious, he will exalt himself by showing mercy. J. H. Michaelis, with much the same effect,, refers *”^ to the condition mentioned in v. 15. Therefore (if you will be quiet and believe) Jehovah will wait etc. Another difficulty of the same kind has arisen from the next clause, where the justice of God seems to be given as a reason for showing mercy. Gill removes the difficulty by trans lating hs although; Henderson by taking afiiua in the sense of rectitude, including as a prominent idea faithfulness or truth in the fulfilment of his promises. Another expedient suggested by Gill is to give BSCE the sense of discretion. That the clause does not relate to righteousness or justice in the strict sense, appears plain from the added benediction upon those who trust Jehovah. One point is universally admitted, namely, that somewhere in this verse is the transition from the tone of threatening to that of promise, The question where it shall be fixed, though interesting, does not affect the general connexion or the import of the passage as a whole. Ewald strangely adopts, as absolutely necessary, Houbigant’s emendation of the text, by reading 0111 for an, and explains the former to mean, does not suffer himself to be moved (ruhrt sich nicht), an explanation scarcely less& arbitrary than the criticism on which it is founded.
19. For the people in Zion shall dwell in Jerusalem; thou shalt weep no more; he will be very gracious unto thee at the voice of thy cry; as he hears it he will answer thee. The position of the first verb in this English sentence leaves it doubtful whether it is to be construed with what follows or what goes before. Precisely the same ambiguity exists in the original, which may either mean that the people who are now in Zion shall dwell in Jerusalem, or that the people shall dwell in Zion, in Jerusalem. This last is the most natural construction, and the one indicated by the accents. It is adopted in the English version, but with a needless variation of the particle, in Zion at Jerusalem. According to Henderson, the a expresses more strongly the relation of the Jews to Zion as their native home, But this assertion is hardly borne out by the places which he cites (ch. 21 r 13. 1 Kings 16: 24. 2 Kings 5: 23). In the translation above given the Hebrew order is restored. According to these constructions, dwell must be taken in the strong sense of remaining or continuing to dwell (Hendewerk), in allusion to the deportation of the rest of Judah (Grotius), or of the ten tribes (Clericus). But a very different construction of the first clause is proposed by Doderlein, and approved by Gesenius and Ewald. These interpreters regard the whole clause as a vocative, or in other words as a description of the object of address. For oh people in Zion, dwelling in Jerusalem, ikon shalt weep no more. To obtain this sense, we must either read asj^ as a participle, or supply the relative before it, and suppose a sudden change of person, as in ch. 28: 16, and 29: 14. This necessity, together with the collocation of the ^”s, renders the vocative construction less natural and probable than that which makes the first clause a distinct pro position or promise. Besides, it is not easy to account for so extended a description of the people, as a mere introduction to the words that follow. These words are made emphatic by the combination of the infinitive and finite verb. DeWette, according to his wont, regards it as an idiomatic pleonasm. Grotius translates the first phrase, non diu flebis; the English Version, thou shalt weep no more. (For the usage of this combination to express continued action, see the note on ch. 6: 9.) Ewald adheres more closely to the form of the original by simple repetition of the verb (weinen weinen sollst du nicht, begnadigen begnadigen wird er dich). Cocceius retains the strict sense of the preterite T|J^ as an appeal to their experience (cum audivit respondit tibi). This yields a good sense, but the other agrees better with the context. The particle of comparison has its usual sense before the infinitive, and is best represented by the English as. Lowth, on the authority of the Septuagint, inserts ttJ’np and changes a<b to -6, reading the whole clause thus: when a holy people shall dwell in Zion, when in Jerusalem thou shalt implore him with weeping. For the form *:m see Gen. 43: 29. t::r
20. And the Lord will give you bread of affliction and water of oppression, and no more shall thy teachers hide themselves, and thine eyes shall see thy teachers. The first clause is conditionally construed by Calvin (ubi dederit), Vitringa (siquidem), and Ewald (gibt euch). Clericus refers it to the past (dedit). But both usage and the context require that n should be regarded as conversive, and the condition, though implied, is not expressed. The Vulgate renders is and yrb as adjectives (panem arctum, aquam brevem). DeDieu supposes them to be in apposition with the noun preceding, affliction (as) bread, and oppression (as) water. This is favoured by the absolute form of DIE; but the same words are construed in the same way 1 Kings 22: 27, where the reference can only be to literal meat and drink. For other examples of the absolute instead of the construct, see the Hebrew grammars. Gesenius supplies in before affliction and oppression, implying that even in the midst of their distress God would feed them, Jarchi regards this as a description of the temperate diet of the righteous, and Junius likewise renders it, modice cibaberis. The true connexion seems to be, that God would afflict them outwardly, but would not deprive them of their spiritual privileges; or, as Cocceius says, there should be a famine of bread, but not of the word of the Lord (Amos 8: 11). From the use of C]33 in the sense of wing and corner, the reflexive verb has been variously explained as meaning to fly away (Montanus), and to be removed into a corner (English Version) or shut up in one (Junius). It is now commonly agreed, however, that the primary sense is that of covering, and that the Niphal means to hide one’s self. The Vulgate renders ^.itt as a singular (doctorem tuum), in which it is followed by Ewald, who explains the Hebrew word as a singular form peculiar to the roots with final Ji. (See the note on ch. 5: 12.) Thus understood, the word must of course be applied to God himself, as the great teacher of his people. Kimchi’s explanation of the word as meaning the early rain (which sense it has in Joel 2: 23 and per haps in Ps. 84: 7) has been retained only by Calvin and Lowth. The great majority of writers adhere, not only to the sense of teacher, but to the plural import of the form, and understand the word as a designation or de scription of the prophets, with particular reference, as some suppose, to their reappearance after a period of severe persecution or oppression. (See Ezek. 33: 22.)
21. And, thine ears shall hear a word from behind thee, saying. This is the way, walk ye in it, when ye turn to the right and when ye turn to the left. The Septuagint makes this the voice of seducers (iwv nlavri- (jdvTwv); but it is evidently that of a faithful guide and monitor; according to the Rabbins, the Bath Kol or mysterious echo which conducts and warns the righteous. Word is an idiomatic expression used where we should say one speaking. The direction of the voice from behind is commonly ex plained by saying, that the image is borrowed from the practice of shepherds going behind their flocffiC, or nurses behind children, to observe their motions. A much more natural solution is the one proposed by Henderson, to wit, that their guides were to be before them, but that when they declined from the right way their backs would be turned to them, consequently the warn ing voice would be heard behind them. The meaning of the call is, this is the way which you have left, come back to it. Lowth follows the Septuagint, Targum, and Peshito, in making ^3 a negative (turn not aside), wholly without necessity or warrant. Interpreters are commonly agreed that the particle is either conditional (if ye turn) or temporal (when ye turn); but the simplest construction seems to be that proposed by Hendewerk (for ye turn or will turn to the right and to the left). As if he had said, this warn ing will be necessary, for you will certainly depart at times from the path of safety. This idea may, however, be considered as included or implied in the usual translation when. Calvin is singular in applying this clause, not to deviations from the right path, but to the emergencies of life in general: wherever you go, whichever way you turn, you shall hear this warning and directing voice. The verbs in the last clause are derived from nouns mean ing the right and left hand. The peculiar form of the original is closely and even barbarously copied by Montanus (cum dextraveritis et cum sinistraveritis). is^xn may be either an inaccurate orthography for ‘•awn, or derived from a synonymous root “jax.
22. And ye shall defile (i. e. treat as unclean) the covering of thy idols of silver and the case of thy image of gold, thou shall scatter them (or abhor them) as an abominable thing. Away! shalt thou say to it. The remarkable alternation of the singular and plural, both in the nouns and verbs of this sentence, is retained in the translation. The sense of finssa is determined by the analogy of 2 Kings 23: 8, 10, 13. The gold and silver, both in Hebrew and English, may qualify either the image or the covering. The latter is more probable, because the covering would scarcely have been mentioned, if it had not been commonly of greater value than the body of the idol. ^t?B and rosn strictly denote graven and molten images respectively, but are constantly employed as poetical equivalents. The specific meaning given to W by the older writers, and by some of them dwelt upon with needless and disgusting particularity, is rejected by Ewald, who makes it synonymous with ^ in Job 6: 7, meaning loathsomeness or any thing loathsome. He also connects cntn with the noun *r,t in Numbers 11: 20, and renders it abhor. The common meaning scatter is appropriate, however, and is here recommended by its application to the dust or fragments ©f the golden calf in Exodus 32: 20.
23. And he shall give the rain of thy seed (i. e. the rain necessary to its growth), with which thou shalt sow the ground, and bread, the produce of the ground, and it shall be fat and rich; thy cattle shall feed that day in an enlarged pasture. Rosenmiiller calls this a description of the golden age, and cites a parallel from Virgil. He even mentions, as a trait in the description, fruges nullo cultu enatae, whereas the very next words imply laborious cultivation. J. D. Michaelis supposes the resumption of tillage in the last years of Hezekiah to be here predicted. Henderson explains it as a promise of increased fertility after the return from exile. All these applications appear too exclusive. The text contains a promise of increased prosperity after a season of privation, and was often verified. That “O, which usually has the sense of lamb, is ever used in that of pasture, is denied by Hengstenberg (on Psalm 37: 20 and 65: 14). But the latter meaning seems to be absolutely necessary here, and is accordingly assumed by all interpreters. The passive participle an-i: seems to imply, not only that the pastures should be wide, but that they had once been narrow.
24. And the oxen and the asses working the ground shall eat salted provender which has been winnowed (literally, which one winnows) with the sieve and fan. The meaning evidently is that the domesticated animals shall fare as well as men in other times. The word ear, used in the English Version, is an obsolete derivative of the Latin aro to plough, “p^n Ma properly means fermented mixture. The first word is commonly supposed to denote here a mixture of different kinds of grain, and the other a seasoning of salt or acid herbs, peculiarly grateful to the stomachs of cattle. Lowth translates the whole phrase well-fermented maslin, which is retained by Barnes, while Henderson has salted provender. J. D. Michaelis supposes the grain to be here described as twice winnowed; but the implements mentioned were probably employed in one and the same process. Augusti: thrown to them (vorgeworfen) with the shovel and the fan.
25. And there shall be, on every high mountain, and on every elevated hill, channels, streams of water, in the day of great slaughter, in the falling of towers (or when towers fall). J. D. Michaelis connects this with what goes before, and understands it as a description of the height to which agriculture would be carried, by means of artificial irrigation, after the over throw of the Assyrians. Grotius regards it as a promise of abundant rains. Clericus calls this a gratuitous conjecture, but immediately proceeds to connect the verse with the figures of v. 33, and to explain it as referring to the water-courses which it would be necessary to open, in order to purify the ground from the effects of such a slaughter. To this, much more justly than to Grotius’s interpretation, we may apply the words of Clericus himself in another place, praestat tacere quam hariolari. He also arbitrarily gives b§ the sense of from. The simple meaning seems to be that water shall flow where it never flowed before, a common figure in the Prophets for a great change, and especially a change for the better. The same sense is no doubt to be attached to the previous descriptions of abundance and fertility. In allusion to the etymology of D^B, Lowth poetically renders it disparting rills. For ta-^aa Clericus reads o^Vjso, and understands it as descriptive of the Assyrians, qui magnifice se efferebant. J. D. Michaelis makes the same application, and translates the word Grosssprccher. A similar reading is implied in the versions of Aquila and Symmachus (peye&wnni- VOVQ). Lowth has the mighty in imitation of the Targum (i *o~). Calvin applies D^Jna, in its usual sense, to Babylon. Hitzig infers from the use of the word a’l.n, that the towers meant are living towers, i. e. the Assyrian chiefs. Knobel applies Jrtn to the slaughter of the Jews themselves, and understands by towers their fortifications, of which there would be no further need in the happy period here foretold. The words are referred by some of the Jewish writers to the days of the Messiah; by Vitringa, with a threefold application, to the times of the Maccabees, of Constantine, and of the seventh Apocalyptic period; by Gill, to the slaughter of the antichristian kings described in Rev. 19: 17-21. The diversity and arbitrary nature of these explanations show that there are no sufficient data in the text itself for any such specific and exclusive application. All that can certainly be gathered from the words is, that a period of war and carnage should be followed by one of abundance and prosperity.
26. And the light of the moon shall be as the light of the sun, and the light of the sun shall be sevenfold, as the light of seven days, in the day of Jehovah’s binding up the breach of his people, and the stroke of his wound he will heal. Instead of the usual words for sun and moon, we have here two poetical expressions, one denoting heat and the other white. Lowth renders one simply moon, but the other meridian sun. Augusti has pale moon and burning sun. (Ewald: das bleiche Mondlicht und das Glutlicht.) Lowth pronounces the words as the light of seven days to be ‘ a manifest gloss, taken in from the margin; it is not in most of the copies of the LXX; it interrupts the rhythmical construction, and obscures the sense by a false or at least an unnecessary interpretation.’ This sentence is remarkable as furnishing the model, upon which the textual criticism of the modern Germans, with respect to glosses, seems to have been moulded. We have here the usual supposition of a transfer from the margin, the usual appeal to some defective ancient version, the usual complaint of interrupted rhythm, and the usual alternative of needless or erroneous explanation. The liberties which Lowth took with the text, in pursuance of a false but favourite hypothesis, have led, by a legitimate but unforeseen application of his principles, to results from which he would himself have undoubtedly recoiled. As to the history of this particular criticism, it is approved by Gesenius and Hitzig, but rejected by Ewald and Umbreit, who observes that the addition of these words was necessary to explain the previous words as not describing seven suns, but the light of one sun upon seven days. Maimonides supposes an allusion to the seven days of the dedication of Solomon’s temple. The Targum, still more strangely, multiplies the seven twice into itself and reads, three hundred and forty-three days, a conceit no doubt founded upon some cabalistic superstition. Grotius explains the figures of this verse as denoting joy, and quotes as a classical parallel, ipse mihi visus pulchrior ire dies, to which Vitringa adds, gratior it dies et soles melius nitent. It is plain however that the Prophet’s language is designed, not merely to express great joy, but to describe a change in the face of nature, as an emblem of some great revolution in the state of society. (Compare ch. 13: 10, 13.) It is therefore another item added to the catalogue of previous similes or comparisons, all denoting the same thing, yet showing by their very diversity that they denote it only in a tropical or figurative manner. Hendewerk ironically censures Hengstenberg for not including the improved feed of oxen and asses among the attributes of the Messiah’s reign. But the real inconsistency is on the part of those who understand v. 24 in its strictest sense, and yet explain the verse before us as a mere poetical description or imaginative anticipation. The remark of J. D. Michaelis upon this point may be quoted as characteristic of his mind and manner. c This is not to be literally taken, for it would be very inconvenient to us, if it were as bright by night as it is now by day when the sun shines; and if the sun should shine seven times brighter than now, we must be blinded.’ According to Gesenius, the wounds referred to in the last clause are the wounds inflicted by false teachers; but there seems to be no reason for restricting the import of the terms as descriptive of suffering in general.
27. Behold, the name of Jehovah cometh from afar, burning his an ger and heavy the ascent (of smoke): his lips are full of wrath and his tongue as a devouring fire. Koppe begins a new division here without necessity. By the name of Jehovah we are not simply to understand Jehovah himself, but Jehovah as revealed in word or act, and therefore glorious. (Grotius: Deus omni laude dignissimus.) According to Raymund Martini, the expression was applied by the old Jews to the Messiah. Gill thinks it may denote the angel who destroyed Sennacherib’s army. J. D. Michaelis takes the name in its strict sense and translates the verb erschallet (the name of Jehovah sounds or echoes from afar), pirna is by some referred to time, but the proper local sense is more appropriate. Clericus alone translates i’Bfi» his face (ardens facies ejus). The English Version makes *r?s agree with DUJ and supplies a preposition before IBS. (burning with his anger). Others supply the preposition before *>sfa (with his burning anger). Others make the clause an independent proposition (burning is his anger). Ewald adopts a construction similar to that of the ablative absolute in Latin (his anger burning). Augusti supposes the next words to mean, he makes the burden heavy, which implies a change of text, at least as to the pointing. Most of the late interpreters explain nxtoa as synonymous with P«toa, meaning strictly the ascent of smoke or flame, and by metonymy the smoke or flame itself. (Compare the notes on ch. 9: 18, 19.) Barnes: the flame is heavy. Henderson: dense is the smoke. Hendewerk has Rauchsdule (column of smoke), Umbreit aufstiegender Brand ascending fire or conflagration). Ewald and Knobel have reverted to the primary meaning, ascent or elevation. The former has gewaltiger Erhebung; the latter, heavy (i. e. slow) is the rising of Jehovah in the distance. Oecolampadius understands by lips and tongue the sentence pronounced by the Messiah on his enemies: but the words are to be strictly under stood, as traits in the prophetic picture of this terrible epiphany.
28. And his breath (or spirit), like an overflowing stream, shall divide as far as the neck, to sift the nations in the sieve of falsehood, and a misleading bridle on the jaws of the people. There are here three metaphors employed to express the same general idea, those of a flood, a sieve, and a bridle. Umbreit is singular in putting a favourable meaning on the last two, as implying that the nations should be purged, not destroyed, by sifting, and that when they thought themselves misled they should be brought into the right path by a way they knew not. This is far less natural than the common explanation of the whole verse as a threatening against Jehovah’s enemies. Grotius renders n*n anger, Luther and the English Version breath; but there is no sufficient reason for excluding an allusion to the Holy Spirit as a personal agent. Junius makes n^rn a preterite in accordance with his notion that the whole verse has respect to the Assyrian oppression of the tributary nations. The verb means strictly to divide into halves, and is here explained by the English Version in the sense of reach ing to the midst; but most interpreters adopt the explanation of Vatablus, that the water rising to the neck divides the body into two unequal parts. The metaphor itself, as in ch. 8: 8, denotes extreme danger. The phrase tottj nsa is ambiguous. It may either mean the sieve of falsehood (Clericus, cribro mendacii) or of wickedness in general, i. e. the instrument by which the wicked and especially the false are to be punished; or the sieve of ruin, pointing out the issue of the process, as the other version does the object upon which it acts. This last sense is attained, in a different way, by Calvin, who explains the words to mean in a useless (or worthless) sieve, i. e. according to Gill’s paraphrase, ‘ they were to be sifted, not with a good and profitable sieve, which retains the corn and shakes out the chaff, or so as to have some taken out and spared, but with a sieve that lets all through, and so be brought to nothing, as the Vulgate Latin Version (in nihilum).’ Barnes’s translation of this clause is, to toss the nations with the winnowing shovel of perdition. ns:n is noted by Gesenius and Knobel as a Chaldee form, but neither of them seems to regard it as a proof that the passage is later than the time of Isaiah. The construction of this verb with •jG’i is regarded by some writers as an instance of zeugma. Others supply the verb to put, others the substantive verb to be, or there shall be, as in the English Version. The connexion is in any case too plain to be mistaken. The last clause is paraphrased by Luther as denoting that Jehovah would drive the nations hither and thither (hin und her treibe). Most interpreters prefer the more specific sense of leading astray or in the wrong direction, with particular allusion, as J. D. Michaelis supposes, to the fact that Sennacherib was misled by a false report respecting Tirhakah the king of Ethiopia. The equestrian allusion in the text has nowhere perhaps been so fully carried out as in the old French Version, qui les fera trotter a travers champs.
29. The song (or singing) shall be to you (i. e. your song shall be) like the night of the consecration of a feast, and joy of heart (i. e. your joy shall be) like (that of) one marching with the pipe (or flute) to go into the mountain of Jehovah, to the Rock of Israel. The night may be particularly mentioned in the first clause, either because all the Mosaic festivals began in the evening, or with special allusion to the Passover, which is described in the law (Ex. 12: 42) as a night to be much observed unto the Lord, as that night of the Lord to be observed of all the children of Israel in their generations. By u^pm we are probably to understand the whole celebration of the feast, and not the mere proclaiming of it, as expressed by Lowth and Barnes. This verse gives an interesting glimpse of ancient usage as to the visitation of the temple at the greater yearly festivals. The Rock of Israel is not Mount Zion or Moriah, but Jehovah himself, to whose presence they resorted, as appears from 2 Samuel 23: 3.
30. And Jehovah shall cause to be heard the majesty of his voice and the descent of his arm shall he cause to be seen, with indignation of anger and a flame of devouring fire, scattering and rain and hailstones (literally stone of hail). There is no more need of explaining Jehovah’s voice to be thunder than there is of explaining the stroke of his arm to be lightning, both which explanations are in fact given by Knobel. The image presented is that of a theophany, in which storm and tempest are only accompanying circumstances, rro may be either a derivative of nw to rest or of nns to descend, although the latter is more probably itself derived from the noun. Lowth’s translation of qs SjSta (with wrath indignant) is neither so exact nor so impressive as the literal version. y32 is rendered by the older writers as an abstract noun from fS5 to scatter; by Rosenmiiller and Knobel as a poetical description of the winds as scattered; but by Gesenius, from the Chaldee and Arabic analogy, as meaning a violent or driving rain.
31. For at the voice of Jehovah shall Assyria (or the Assyrian) be broken, with the rod shall he smite. The “pa before trip may denote either the time or the cause of the effect described, and may accordingly be rendered either at or by. The first may be preferred as more comprehensive and as really including the other, nrn originally means to be broken, and is so used in ch. 7: 8 above; but it is commonly applied, in a figurative sense, to the breaking of the spirit or the courage by alarm. Here some translate it beaten down, as in the English Version, others frightened or confounded, as in Luther’s (erschrecken). There are two constructions of the last clause, one continuing Assyria as the subject of the verb, the other referring it to Jehovah. Forerius amends the text by reading ri3*> in the passive (he shall be smitten), which gratuitous suggestion is adopted by Dathe and Koppe. Lowth, not content with supplying the relative before ns£, inserts it in the text, on the authority of Seeker’s conjecture that it may have dropped out (forte excidit). The past form given to the verb, not only in the English Version (smote) but by Hitzig (schlug), seems entirely unauthorized by usage or the context. Ewald, less violently, reads it as a present (schldgt), but even if Assyria be the subject of the clause, it is clear that the Prophet speaks of her oppressions as being, in whole or in part, still future to his own perceptions. A much less simple and successful method of accounting for the future is by making the verb mean that Assyria was ready or about to smite, with Lowth and Vitringa (vriga percussurus). But by far the most natural construction of the clause is that which supplies nothing and adheres to the strict sense of the future, by connecting ns1] not with n^;5< but ^’n1?, both which are mentioned in the other clause. Gesenius, although right in this respect, mars the beautiful simplicity of the construction, by gratuitously introducing when at the beginning of the first clause, and then at the beginning of the second. No less objectionable, on the score of taste, is the use of yea or yes, as an equivalent to 13, by DeWette and Ewald. Knobel’s translation of the same word by then is as arbitrary here as in ch. 7: 9, the only authority to which he ap peals. The express mention of Assyria in this verse, though it does not prove it to have been from the beginning the specific subject of the prophecy, does show that it was a conspicuous object in Isaiah’s view, as an example both of danger and deliverance, and that at this point he concentrates his prophetic vision on this object as a signal illustration of the general truths which he has been announcing.
32. And every passage of the rod of doom, which Jehovah will lay (or cause to rest) upon him, shall be with tabrets and harps, and with fights of shaking it is fought therein. There is the same diversity of judgment here as in the foregoing verse, with respect to the question whether the rod mentioned in the first clause is the rod which the Assyrian wielded, or the rod which smote himself. On the former supposition, the sense would seem to be, that in every place through which the rod of the oppressor had before passed there should now be heard the sound of joyful music. This construction not only involves the necessity of supplying in before the first noun, but leaves the words which Jehovah will lay upon him either unmeaning or irrelevant, or at least far less appropriate than if the reference be to Jehovah’s judgments on Assyria, which is further recommended by the reasons above given for applying the last words of v. 31 to the same catastrophe. Assuming therefore that the clause before us was likewise intended to be so applied, the sense would seem to be that every passage of Jehovah’s rod (i. e. every stroke which passes from it to the object) will be hailed, by those whom the Assyrian had oppressed, with joy and exultation. It is an ingenious suggestion of Henderson, though scarcely justified by Hebrew usage, that “asm is here employed in the peculiar acceptation of the English pass, as used to denote a push or thrust in fencing. This combination, however, is not needed to justify his version (stroke). For JTi&sra Clericus reads fnons or “ibia (supplicii), on the ground of which conjecture, and the authority of one or two manuscripts, Lowth amends the text and translates accordingly (the rod of correction). In like manner J. D. Michaelis in his German version (strafenden Stab). None of the later writers seem to have retained this needless emendation. The common version, grounded staff, is almost unintelligible. It may have some connexion with Calvin’s explanation of the Hebrew phrase as meaning, a staff grounded, that is firmly planted, in the object smitten, or as J. D. Michaelis (in his Notes) has it, well laid on (recht vest und stark auf den Riicken geleget). This, to use a favourite expression of the great Reformer, seems both forced and frigid. It is now very generally agreed that STibto denotes the divine determination or decree, and that the whole phrase means the rod appointed by him, or to put it in a form at once exact and poetical, the rod of destiny or doom. Umbreit attaches to the words the specific sense of long since determined (lang verhangte), which is not in the original. The tabrets and harps are not here named as the ordinary military music (Gill), nor as the sacred music which on particular occasions was connected with the march of armies (2 Chron. 20: 21, 22). Nor is the meaning that Jehovah would overcome the enemy as if in sport or like a merry-making (Grotius), which is inconsistent with the words that follow, laities of shaking, i. e. agitating or tumultuous battles, or as some explain the words, convulsive, struggling conflicts. The true sense seems to be, that every stroke would be attended with rejoicing on the part of the spectators, and especially of those who had been subject to oppression, trips may agree with njn1? as an active or deponent verb, or be construed impersonally as by Ewald (wird gekampft). The keri (ca) must of course mean with them i. e. the Assyrians. The kethib (na) is commonly explained to mean with her i. e. Assyria considered as a country. But Ewald takes it to mean there, or literally in it, i. e. in the Holy Land. This, if we make the verb impersonal, is natural enough, except that it assumes an antecedent not expressly mentioned in the context. Be this as it may, the general sense is plain, to wit, that God would violently overthrow Assyria.
33. For arranged since yesterday is Tophet; even it for the king is prepared; he has deepened, he has widened (it); its pile fire and wood in plenty; the breath of Jehovah, like a stream of brimstone, kindles it. It is universally agreed that the destruction of the Assyrian king is here described as a burning of his body at a stake or on a funeral-pile. But whether the king mentioned be an individual king or an ideal representative of all, and whether this is a mere figurative representation of his temporal destruction or a premonition of his doom hereafter, are disputed questions. Tophet is well known to have been the name of a place in the valley of Hinnom where children were sacrificed to Moloch, and on that account afterwards defiled by the deposit of the filth of the city, to consume which constant fires were maintained. Hence, by a natural association, Tophet, as well as the more general name, Valley of Hinnom, was applied by the later Jews to the place of future torment. The Chaldee paraphrase of this verse renders npisn by conn. The name Tophet has been commonly derived from 5]i)n, to spit upon, as an expression of abhorrence; but Gesenius derives it from the Persian.^JCilj’ to burn, with which he also connects ftdmEiv, as originally meaning to burn and secondarily to bury. If this be the correct etymology of nan, it denotes a place of burning in the general, and was only applied to the spot before mentioned by way of eminence, in allusion either to the sacrificial or the purgatorial fires there maintained, or both. On this hypothesis, it would be altogether natural to understand the word here in an indefinite or generic sense, as meaning a place of burning, such as a stake or a funeral pile, and it is so explained accordingly by Gesenius (Brandstatte), Ewald (Scheiterhaufen), and other late interpreters. The question whether it is here used to describe the place of future torments or as a mere poetical description of the temporal destruction of the king of Assyria, is the less important, as the language must in either case be figurative, and can teach us nothing therefore as to the real circumstances either of the first or second death. Considering however the appalling grandeur of the images presented, and our Saviour’s use of similar expressions to describe the place of everlasting punishment, and also the certainty deducible from other scriptures, that a wicked king destroyed in the act of fighting against God must be punished in the other world as well as this, we need not hesitate to understand the passage as at least including a denunciation of eternal misery, although the general idea which the figures were intended to express is that of sudden terrible destruction. As the phrase ^ranxo has been variously explained to mean long ago, and just now or a little while ago, it is best to retain the original expression with Calvin (ab hesterno) and Umbreit (von gestern her). The old Jews have a curious tradition that hell was made on the second day of the creation, or the first that had a yesterday, for which rea son God pronounced no blessing on it. The verbs p”»asn and srrri must be either construed with Jehovah or indefinitely. rn*i« means the whole circumference and area of the place of burning. Gesenius connects it with the foregoing verbs to make the structure of the sentence more symmetrical (deep and wide is its pile—fire and wood in plenty); but Hitzig vindicates the masoretic interpunction on the ground that the foregoing verbs cannot be applied to the pile, and that the following proposition would in that case have no predicate. For a similar expression he refers to Jer. 24: 2. Lowth connects ^7?^ Wltn ^ an(^ renders it a fiery pyre, which Barnes has altered to a pyre for the flame, both overlooking the pronominal suffix. All^usti takes the final n as a suffix (Ids Tophet); but it is commonly regarded as a paragogic letter or a mere euphonic variation of the usual form rs’n. J. D. Michaelis, however, thinks that if the present reading is the true one, it must be a verb meaning thou shalt be deceived, another allusion to the false report about the Ethiopians. DeWette renders h3 at the begin ning yea; but it has really its proper sense of for, because, connecting this verse, either with the one immediately before it, or with the remoter context. Knobel supposes that the images of this verse were selected because the burning of the dead was foreign from the Jewish customs and abhorrent to their feelings. According to Clericus, the Tophet of this verse was a place of burning really prepared by Hezekiah for the bodies of the slain Assyrians, but entirely distinct from the Tophet near Jerusalem. Luther by rendering it pit (die Grube), and J. D. Michaelis churchyard (Kirchhof), destroy its connexion with the real Tophet and with the ideas of fire and burning.
