THIS chapter contains a general threatening of retribution to the enemies of God’s people, with particular reference to Sennacherib or the Assyrian power. The spoiler shall himself be spoiled in due time, through the divine interposition, and for the exaltation of Jehovah, vs. 1-6. The state of desolation and alarm is followed by sudden deliverance, vs. 7-13. The same vicissitudes are again described, but in another form, vs. 14-19. The peace and security of Zion are set forth under the figures of a stationary tent, and of a spot surrounded by broad rivers, yet impassable to hostile vessels, vs. 20-22. By a beautiful transition, the enemy is described as such a vessel, but dismantled and abandoned to its enemies, v. 23. The chapter closes with a general promise of deliverance from suffering, as a consequence of pardoned sin, v. 24.
1. Woe to thee spoiling and thou wast not spoiled, deceiving and they did not deceive thee! When thou shalt cease to spoil thou shalt be spoiled, and when thou art done deceiving they shall deceive thee. The plural verbs, in both clauses, are indefinitely construed as equivalents to the passive participles. The two ideas meant to be expressed are those of violence and treachery, as the crying sins of arbitrary powers. The latest German writers suppose both the verbs to be expressive of robbery or spoliation, but without authority from usage. (See the note on ch. 21: 2.) The person addressed has been supposed by different writers to be Nebuchadnezzar, Antiochus Epiphanes (Vitringa), Ferdinand II. (Cocceius), Antichrist (Gill), and Satan (Jerome). Most interpreters suppose it to be Sennacherib, either as an individual or as a representative of the Assyrian power. In themselves the words are applicable to any oppressive and deceitful enemy, and may be naturally so explained at the beginning of the prophecy. This verse describes the enemy as acting without provocation, and also as having never yet experienced reverses.
2. Jehovah, favour us; for thee we wait; be their arm in the morn ings, also our salvation in time of trouble. Instead of their arm, Lowth follows several of the ancient versions in reading our arm. The common text has been variously explained as a prayer of the present for the absent (Vitringa), of the Jewish for the Christian Church (DeDieu), of the Re formed Church for its defenders (Cocceius), etc. etc. The truth seems to be, as Barnes well says, that Isaiah here interposes his own feelings, and offers his own prayer that God would be the strength of the nation, and then, with an immediate change of form, presents the prayer of the people. Arm is a common Hebrew metaphor for strength or support. (See ch. 9: 19.) As to the mornings is an indefinite expression, understood by some to mean early or quickly, by others every morning (Kimchi: *ipm ^ps ^33)> with allusion to the daily attacks of the enemy (Henderson) or to the daily morn ing sacrifice (Piscator).. Calvin explains the whole clause thus: be thou, who wast their arm (i. e. that of our fathers) in the morning (i. e. of old), also our salvation in time of trouble. But this is rather a Latin than a Hebrew construction.
3. At a noise of tumult (or tumultuous noise) the peoples flee-, at thy rising the nations are scattered. The modern notion, that the voice of Jehovah always means thunder, seems entirely arbitrary. The voice and the rising up are parts of the same figure, and the one has no more reference to actual phenomena in nature than the other. Aben Ezra and Lowth suppose these words to be addressed to Sennacherib, all other writers to Jehovah himself. Jerome refers the first clause to the voice of the destroy ing angel, Piscator to the tumult in the camp of the Assyrians. Lowth reads thy terrible voice, in which, as he says, he follows the Septuagint and Peshito. The same combination occurs in Dan. 10: 6. (Compare Rev. 1: 10, 15.) The rising meant is not the ascent of the judge to the judg ment-seat (Piscator), nor the exaltation of the Assyrian power (Aben Ezra), but the act of rising from a state of seeming inaction, or as when one rouses himself to strike (Barnes). These words are commonly applied to the divine interposition in the case of Sennacherib’s attack upon Jerusalem; but Ewald understands them more generally as denoting that such had ever been the effect of Jehovah’s presence, and must be so still. Some arbitrarily translate the verse as a direct prediction (fugient) or a prayer (fugiant).
4. And your spoil shall be gathered (like) the gathering of the devour cr; like the running of locusts running on it. By another apostrophe, the Prophet here addresses the enemy collectively, V^on is a name of the locust, so called from its devouring. (See the verb in Deut. 28: 38.) Henderson translates the parallel terms, devouring locust and caterpillar-locusts. The older writers understand this clause to mean as locusts are gathered, for the purpose of destroying them, even by children (Calvin) or by labourers in pits (Jerome), a custom still existing in Africa and Spain (Forerius). Junius explains it to mean that which locusts have gathered. But all the modern writers understand the words to mean as locusts gather, i. e. greedily and thoroughly, nut leaving a tree or a field till they have stripped it (Bochart). As t)0» is the verb used to denote the gathering of fruits in harvest (ch. 17: 5), Gesenius supposes a specific allusion to that usage here, like the harvesting of locusts etc. The construction of the last clause is: like the running of locusts (shall one be) running on it (i. e. on the spoil). The verb pptts denotes specifically the act of running eagerly or with a view to satisfy the appetite. It is sometimes used to denote desire itself, which Umbreit assumes to be the meaning here (nach Heuschrecken-Gier giert man darnach). Vitringa finds the fulfilment of this threatening in 1 Mace. 4: 23. 6: 6. There is an old rabbinical tradition, which so explains this verse as to justify the seizure of the spoils of the ten tribes by the Jews, when found in the possession of the Assyrians.
5. Exalted is Jehovah because dwelling on high (or inhabiting a high place); he fills (or has filled) Zion with judgment and righteousness. The first word, being a passive participle, seems to denote not merely a condition but a change. He has been exalted, by the subjection of his enemies (Knobel), or by his mighty deeds in general. The future form adopted in the French Version (ya etre magnifie) is needless and arbitrary. There is no need of making ^ a relative (Vitringa) or rendering it yea (Barnes), as it introduces an explanation of the statement in the first clause. High place is not put specifically for heaven (Gesenius) but for a lofty and commanding position. The last clause probably denotes, not the moral effects produced upon the people (Ewald), but the manifestation of Jehovah’s attributes. According to Hendewerk, this second clause is the beginning of the Messianic part of the first of the three prophecies contained in the chapter. Lowth introduces here his favourite idea of a chorus or choir of Jews representing the whole people.
6. And he shall be the security of thy times, strength of salvations, wisdom and knowledge, the fear of Jehovah, that is his treasure. Most interpreters connect rrn either with rsi^x or to,Gn as its subject: there shall be security in thy times, or, the security of thy times shall be, or strength of salvations etc. shall be the security of thy times. But the simplest construction is the one proposed by Henderson, which supplies the subject from the foregoing verse, he (i. e. Jehovah, or it i. e. his righteousness) shall be etc. The object of address is supposed by some to be Hezekiah, by others the Messiah, but is most probably the people or the believer as an individual. His treasure may refer by an enallage personae to the same, or mean the treasure of Jehovah, that which he bestows. Hitzig supposes an allusion in the last clause to Hezekiah’s treasury emptied by the tribute to Sennacherib, as if he had said, henceforth the fear of the Lord shall be his treasure. Umbreit makes the first clause by a forced construction mean that the evil times should produce or foster faith, and that this should be a treasure to the people, pn, according to its etymology, means strength, but in usage is applied exclusively to that arising from wealth. The original construction is perfectly intelligible and much more expressive than such paraphrastic versions as possessio salutaris (Clericus). According to Hendewerk, this verse proves that the only Messiah, of whom Isaiah ever prophesies, is Hezekiah! Knobel thinks that it must be addressed to the people, because Hezekiah was a pious man before.
7. Behold, their valiant ones cry without; the ambassadors of peace weep bitterly. The Targum and some other ancient versions seem to treat cfejos as a contraction of n!b nsnx or s!b runs. Thus Aquila has lQa&r]6ofjiai avToig, Symmachus oqi&foopai, the Vulgate videntes. But there is no example of the form sb for tfi.b. (See the note on ch. 9: 6.) Ewald reads a^bios and explains it as an adjective derived from ban synonymous with the Arabic JL^ to fear. They fearful cry aloud. This coincides in mean ing with the Septuagint version («V i<$ qpo^eo avrwv). Most of the other modern writers identify the word substantially with Ariel in ch. 29: 1, by reading ab&nx in the plural or abana with a suffix. The latest investigations, although still unsatisfactory, tend strongly to confirm the version given in the English Bible. (See Gesenius’s Thesaurus s. v,) Some, however, here as in ch. 29: 1, give Ariel the sense of altar. Thus Grotius translates the words behold their altar, and regards it as a derisive exclamation of the enemy, while Jarchi makes it a sorrowful ejaculation of the Jews themselves. Aben Ezra and Kimchi give it the sense of messengers, which is plainly a conjectural inference from the parallel expression. J. D. Michaelis characteristically makes it the name of a species of bird and renders it Rohrdommel The messengers mentioned in the other clause are not those sent by Hezekiah to Isaiah (2 Kings 19: 2), nor the Maccabees, as being both priests and heroes (Vitringa), nor the ministers of the gospel, nor the two apocalyptic witnesses (Gill), but probably the three men sent by Hezekiah to Rabshakeh (2 Kings 18: 18) or perhaps the bearers of the tribute, weeping on account of Sennacherib’s refusal to fulfil his promise. Hendewerk supposes them to be called valiant, because they ventured into the enemy’s camp; others because they were probably military chiefs. Their weeping is agreed by all interpreters to be in strict accordance with the ancient usage, as described, for example, by Homer. According to Cocceius, the first clause is an exclamation at the death of Gustavus Adolphus.
8. The highways are wasted, the wayfarer ceaseth; he breaks the covenant, despises cities, values no man. These are not the words of the ambassadors reporting the condition of the country (Grotius), but of the Prophet himself describing it. The scene presented is not that of Protestant cities seized by Antichrist and a stop put to a religious course and conversation (Gill), but the actual condition of Judea during the Assyrian invasion. (Compare Judges 5: 6.) The verbs of the last clause are not to be indefinitely construed (Cocceius), nor do they agree with wayfarer, but with Sennacherib or the Assyrian. They are not to be rendered as pluperfects (Junius), but as preterites or descriptive presents. The meaning is not that he rejected the cities offered him by Hezekiah (Lowth), nor that he barbarously disregarded the condition of the conquered country (J. D. Michaelis), but that he despised its defences as unable to resist him. The last words may either mean that he has no regard to any man’s interest or wishes, or that he does not value human life. Some have strangely understood this as an impious reproach on God himself as having broken his engagements.
9. The land mourneth, languisheth; Lebanon is ashamed, it pines away; Sharon is like a wilderness, and Bashan and Carmel cast (their leaves). The most fertile and flourishing parts of the country are described as desolate. That the language is figurative, may be inferred from the fact that none of the places mentioned were in Judah. Hitzig and Hendewerk suppose the date of the prediction to be fixed by the allusion to the falling of the leaf. But would this periodical change be represented as a sign of desolation? According to Umbreit, Lebanon (the white mountain) is here described as blushing, but according to Ewald, as turning pale. Barnes thinks the reference is to the places through which the Assyrians had passed. J. D. Michaelis follows up his favourite mode of exposition by asserting that •*« denotes the buzzing of the gadfly, but is here used in the sense of swarming and applied to the hostile armies. Cocceius takes the same word in the sense of roaring. According to Grotius, the Sharon here meant is the one in Bashan (I Chron. 5: 16). According to Clerictis, Lebanon is put for Mount Niphates, and the other places for places in Assyria.
10. Now will I arise, saith Jehovah, now will 1 be lifted up, now will 1 exalt myself. The emphasis is not upon the pronoun (Barnes), which in that case would have been expressed in Hebrew, but upon the adverb now, which is twice repeated to imply that the time for the divine interposition is arrived, and that there shall be no more delay. According to Gesenius, a-m is for ma-hrix but others read
11. Ye shall conceive chaff, ye shall bring forth stubble; your breath (as) fire shall devour you. The first clause contains a common Scriptural figure for failure and frustration. (See ch. 26: 18.) Chaff and stubble are not named as being dry and innutritious food (Vitringa), which would be wholly out of place in this connexion, but as worthless and per ishable substances. Lowth follows Seeker and the Targum in reading Tin 1733 for o2rrn (my spirit like fire shall consume you). Grotius takes rrn in the sense of anger, Clericus in that of pride. Calvin understands the clause to mean that their own breath should kindle the fire that destroyed them. As specimens of opposite extremes in exposition, it may be mentioned, that J. D. Michaelis applies this last clause to the infection of the plague com municated by the breath, Cocceius to the evils arising from the abuse of religious liberty in Germany and Holland, and especially from efforts to re unite the Protestant and Romish churches.
12. And nations shall be lime-kilns (or burnings of lime); thorns cut up, in the fire they shall burn. By nations we are not to understand the different races mingled in Sennacherib’s army, but all nations that incur the wrath of God. The same word burnings is applied to the aromatic fumigations used at ancient burials (Jer. 34: 5), to which there may be some allusion here. The Hebrew word according to analogy may be a noun of place (Hendewerk), but is commonly supposed to denote burnings. Clericus connects the clauses by supposing that the thorns are described as being burnt in lime-kilns. The ideas expressed are those of quickness and 35 intensity. The thorns are perhaps described as cut up, to suggest that they are dry and therefore more combustible. On this same verse J. D. Michaelis observes, that the Jews at that time burnt the bodies of the dead; Knobel, that they regarded the custom with abhorrence. The former adds that when they burnt the Assyrians they might be said to burn a nation. Gill of course refers the verse to the future destruction of antichristian Rome. (Rev. 17: 16. 18: 8.)
13. Hear, ye far, what I have done, and know, ye near, my might. By far and near the Targum understands confirmed saints and repentant sinners; Junius the Jews and Gentiles; Hendewerk the ten tribes and the Jews; but Barnes, more naturally, all without exception. According to Hitzig, the near are commanded to know, because they can see for themselves. Henderson retains the common version, acknowledge. According to Hendewerk, this is the beginning of a third distinct prediction. It is really an apostrophe, expressing the magnitude of the event predicted in the foregoing context.
14. Afraid in Zion are the sinners. Not at or near Zion, meaning the Assyrians (Sanctius), but in Zion i. e. in Jerusalem, referring to the impious Jews themselves. Trembling has seized the impious, a parallel expression to sinners. The meaning hypocrites is rejected by the modern lexicographers for that of impure or gross sinners. So Calvin, in the margin of his version, has scdratos. The persons so described are the wicked and unbelieving portion of the Jews. Gill applies the terms directly to formal professors in the reformed churches; Grotius, to such of the Jews as had apostatized to heathenism in order to conciliate Sennacherib. On this far fetched hypothesis Vitringa well remarks, that such expedients were unknown in ancient warfare, and that Sennacherib probably cared nothing as to the religion of those whom he attacked. What follows might be understood as the language of the Prophet himself, giving a reason for the terror of the wicked. Interpreters appear to be unanimous, however, in making it the language of the wicked Jews themselves. At the same time, they differ greatly as to the time at which these words must be supposed to have been spoken. Some refer them to the past, and understand the verse to mean that they are now in terror who once said thus and thus. On this hypothesis, the words themselves might be explained as the language of defiance. Who of us is afraid (“n^) of the devouring fire Who of us is afraid of exerlasting burnings 1 Or with Vitringa, as the language of complaint. Who of us can dwell with (this) devouring fire 1 Who of us can dwell with (these) perpetual burnings 1 i. e. with a God of such severity? But the great mass of interpreters, both old and new, suppose this to be given not as the former but the present language of the wicked Jews, when actually seized with terror. Not those who once said, but who now say etc. On this supposition, it can be expressive neither of defiance nor complaint, but only of alarm and desperation. Ewald, adopting this interpretation in the general, gives -^” the sense of protecting, derived from its primary import of sojourning as a guest and a friend; but this is a gratuitous departure from the usage of the language. Those who adhere to it are still divided as to the application of the figures. Grotius understands by the fire the Assyrian host that menaced them. Who can abide this devouring fire 1 Piscator, the fire of God’s wrath, as executed by the Assyrians. Aben Ezra, the wrath of God as exercised against the Assyrians themselves. This is the interpretation commonly adopted. It supposes the words to be expressive of the feelings excited by the slaughter of Sennacherib’s host. If this be a specimen of God’s vindicatory justice, what may we expect? Who of us can dwell with (this) devouringJirel Who of us can dwell with (these) perpetual burnings? Many make the language still more emphatic, by supposing that the Prophet argues from the less to the greater. If these are God’s temporal judgments, what must his eternal wrath be? If the mo mentary strokes of his hand are thus resistless, who of us can dwell with the devouring fire, who of us can dwell with everlasting burnings? The last words may then be taken in their strongest and most unrestricted sense. Henderson thinks they have no meaning if they do not refer to eternal punishment. 125 does not here mean for us or with us, but is used in its widest sense, as expressive of relation in general, to qualify the pronoun. Who with respect to us, i. e. who of us, as opposed to men in general. Gesenius describes it as an emphatic formula, and yet omits it in the translation. Hitzig and Hendewerk take fire and burning as a poetical description of the plague, by which they suppose the Assyrians to have perished. Clericus more suo understands it of the burning of the villages of Judah by the invaders. Knobel says the burning was called everlasting, because it was everlasting in its consequences, i. e. it destroyed what it consumed forever. But who could or would speak, in any language, of a man’s being hung with an everlasting rope, or killed by an everlasting stroke of lightning? DeDieu’s construction of the last clause as containing several distinct pro positions (quis commorabitur nostrum 1 ignis dcvorat etc.) is ingenious, but unnatural and wholly unnecessary.
15. This verse contains a description of the righteous man, not un like that in the fifteenth and twenty-fourth Psalms. Walking righteousnesses i. e. leading a righteous life. Walk is a common Scriptural expression for the course of conduct. The plural form of the other word may either be used to mark it as an abstract term, or as an emphatic expression for fulness or completeness of rectitude. In order to retain the figure of walking, the preposition in may be supplied before the noun; but in Hebrew it seems to be governed directly by the verb, or to qualify it as an adverb. And speaking right things, or (taking the plural merely as an abstract) rectitude or righteousness. The idea is not merely that of speaking truth as opposed to falsehood, but that of rectitude in speech as distinguished from rectitude of action. Rejecting or despising (or combining both ideas, rejecting with contempt) the gain of oppressions or extortions. Shaking his hands from taking hold of the bribe, an expressive gesture of indignant refusal, which Forerius compares to Pilate’s washing his hands, and Gataker to Paul’s shaking off the viper. Malvenda imagines that the terms are so selected as to suggest the idea of a weighty gift. Gesenius and others greatly weaken the expression, and indeed destroy its graphic form, by rendering the phrase, whose hand refuses to receive a bribe. The true sense is forcibly conveyed in J. D. Michaelis’s version, shakes his hands that no bribe may stick to them, and in Gill’s homely paraphrase, that won’t receive any, but when they are put into his hands shakes them out. The Chaldee Para phrase of this first clause contains the expression mammon of falsehood, which may be compared with the mammon of unrighteousness in Luke 16: 9. Stopping his ears from hearing bloods, i. e. plans of murder, or as Lowth expresses it, the proposal of bloodshed. For the usage of the plural form D^-I, see the note on ch. 1: 15. Shutting his eyes from looking at evil’}, e. from conniving at it, or even beholding it as an indifferent spectator. The a is then a mere connective like the English at or on; but the combination of this verb and particle appears in many cases to denote the act of gazing at a thing with pleasure, which idea would be perfectly appropriate here. Lowth has, against the appearance of evil, which does not convey the exact sense of the original. According to the natural connexion of the passage, this verse would seem to contain the answer to the question in v. 14, and is so understood by those who make the question mean, who can stand before this terrible Jehovah? But on the supposition of an allusion to eternal punishment, the answer is absurd, for it implies that the righteous man can or will endure it. This may either be regarded as a proof that there is no such allusion to eternal punishment in v. 14, or as a proof that this is not an answer to the question there recorded. The former conclusion is adopted by the latest German writers, who understand this verse as mean ing that God is a consuming fire only to the wicked, and that the righteous man as here described is perfectly secure. On the other hand, Henderson separates this verse from the preceding context by a larger space than usual making this the beginning, as it were, of a new paragraph. To this construction there is the less objection, as the sentence is evidently incomplete in this verse, the apodosis being added in the next.
16. He (the character described in v. 15) high places shall inhabit. This does not. denote exalted station in society, but safety from enemies, in being above their reach, as appears from the other clause. Fastnesses (or strongholds) of rocks (shall be) his lofty place, i. e. his refuge or his place of safety, as in ch. 25: 12. To the idea of security is added that of sustenance, without which the first would be of no avail. His bread is given, including the ideas of allotment or appointment and of actual supply. His water sure, or, retaining the strict sense of the participle, secured. At the same time there is evident allusion to the moral usage of the word as signifying faithful, true, the opposite of that which fails, deceives, or disappoints the expectation, in which sense the same word with a negative is applied by Jeremiah (15: 18) to waters that fail. Clericus explains the first clause of this verse as a promise that those living in the plain should be as safe as if they lived in the mountains. Grotius explains the second as a promise of literal deliverance from famine. Knobel arbitrarily applies the whole to protection and supply in a time of siege, and then infers that the passage must have been composed before Sennacherib approached Jerusalem, be cause the Prophet afterwards was well aware that no siege had taken place at all. This charge of false prediction is exploded by the simple observation, that the verse is an assurance, clothed in figurative language, of general protection and support to the righteous. Vitringa’s reference of the words in their lower sense to the support of the Levitical priesthood, and in their higher sense to the happiness of heaven, goes as much to an extreme, though in an opposite direction.
17. A king in his beauty shall thine eyes behold. Kimchi, by an arbitrary syntax, takes the future as a past tense and refers it to the king of Assyria, whom their eyes had seen but should see no more. Besides the grammatical objection to this version, it is inconsistent with the other clause, unless that also be referred to the same subject by supplying king before a distant land. Of those who take the futures in their proper meaning, some suppose Jehovah to be meant (Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis), others the Messiah (Abarbenel), but most writers Hezekiah, either exclusively (Gesenius) or as a type of Christ (Calvin). For this departure from his customary mode of exposition, Calvin thinks it necessary to apologize by saying, ne quis me hie allegorias sequi putet a quibus sum alienus. To see the king in his beauty does not mean in his moral excellence (Hendewerk), but in his royal state, with tacit reference to his previous state of mourning and dejection (ch. 37: 1). They (i. e. thine eyes) shall behold a land of dis tances or distant places. The most natural explanation of this phrase would be a distant land, in which sense it is used by Jeremiah (8: 19) and a part of it by Zechariah (10: 9), and by both in reference to exile or captivity. The verse before us, taken by itself, might be understood as a threatening that the Jews should see the king of Babylon in his royal state and in a distant land. Interpreters seem to be agreed, however, that in this connexion it can be taken only as a promise. Grotius accordingly explains it to mean that after the fall of the Assyrian host, the Jews should be free to go abroad without restraint and especially to visit the scene of the catastrophe. This explanation he illustrates by a parallel from Virgil. Panduntur portae.juvat ire et Dorica castra desertosque videre locos Jilusque rdictum. Hitzig confines it to their literally seeing far and wide from the walls of Jerusalem, their view being no longer obstructed by entrenchments or the presence of the enemy. Luther and others, on the contrary, suppose the land itself to be here described as actually widened by an accession of conquered territory. To all these explanations it may be objected that the Prophet does not speak of distant boundaries or frontiers, as in ch. 26: 15, but of a distant land. The only explanation of the verse as a promise, against which this objection does not lie, is that of Henderson, who translates the clause, they shall see distant lands, and explains it to mean that instead of being cooped up within the walls of Jerusalem by the Assyrians, the inhabitants should not only freely traverse their own land, but visit distant nations. Whether the liberty of foreign travel is in this connexion an appropriate promise, may be made a question. Piscator under stands the clause to mean that their eyes should see ambassadors from a far country, viz. those of Berodach-baladan (2 Kings 20: 12). But in this case the most important word of the sentence is supplied by mere conjecture. Vitringa applies the whole verse, in its lower sense, to the conquests of the Maccabees and their enlargement of the Jewish territory, but in a higher sense to the glorious reign of the Messiah.
18. Thy heart shall meditate, terror. This does not mean, it shall conceive or experience present terror, but reflect on that which is already past. What follows is explained by some as the language of the Jews in their terror calling for the officers on whom they depended for protection. But the officers here named are not those to whom they would probably have looked in this emergency. Others more naturally understand it therefore as the triumphant exclamation of the people when they found themselves so suddenly delivered from their enemies. Where is he that counted 1 where is he that weighed? where is he that counted the towers 1 As a noun, ^&b means a scribe, and is commonly so rendered here. Some even give it the New Testament sense of yu«. j*«Tc’y, a learned man or doctor of the law. So the Septuagint (jgnppaiiwn), the Vulgate (literatus), Luther (Schriftgelehrten), Vitringa (doctus). This leads of course to an analogous interpretation of the other terms, as meaning legis verba ponderous, doctor parvulorum, dialecticus subtilis, etc. etc. Others, adhering to the Hebrew usage of the noun *isb, understand by it a secretary, financial or military, perhaps a secretary of state, or of war, or an inspector-general (Barnes). The clause is still more modernized by J. D. Michaelis: where is the general, where the engineer? But as the second ^BD is evidently construed as a participle, and in the primary sense of count ing, it is much more natural to understand the first *IEO and bpiu in like manner, as denoting him who counted, him who weighed. This is Ewald’s construction (wer zdhlte, wer wog)< and Lowth gives the same sense to the words as nouns (the accomptant, the weigher of tribute). Thus explained, they may be applied either to the instruments of the Assyrian domination in Judea, or to certain necessary officers attached to the besieging army. The counting and weighing may be either that of tribute or of military wages. The second -its denotes the same act as the first, but is applied expressly to another object. The towers are of course the fortifications of Jerusalem. By counting them some understand surveying them, either with a view to garrisoning or dismantling; others the act of reconnoitring them from with out, which some ascribe particularly to Rabshakeh or Sennacherib himself. The general meaning of the verse is plain, as an expression of surprise and joy, that the oppressor or besieger had now vanished. The Apostle Paul, in 1 Cor. 1: 20, has a sentence so much like this, in the threefold repetition of the question where, and in the use of the word scribe, that it can not be regarded as a mere fortuitous coincidence. Of the mutual relation of the passages two views have been taken by interpreters. Junius and Cocceius regard that in Corinthians as a quotation of the one before us, and Vitringa makes the former determine the whole meaning of the latter. He accordingly explains the Hebrew words as all denoting some form of worldly wisdom and sagacity or its possessors, and the whole verse as implying that the great deliverance had not been wrought by any such means but by God alone. The violence done by this interpretation to the language of the Prophet is enough of itself to make the hypothesis on which it rests a doubtful one. Calvin, on the other hand, denies that Paul has any reference to this place, which is going too far, since it is probable, as Henderson observes, that the structure of the one passage may have suggested the other. The expression it is written, in the preceding verse of the epistle, introduces a quotation from ch. 29: 14, but does not necessarily extend to the next verse, which may therefore be regarded as a mere imitation, as to form and diction, of the one before us.
19. The farce (or determined) people thou shalt not see. Thou shalt see no more the Assyrians, whose disappearance was implied in the questions of the foregoing verse. The essential idea of 7312 seems to be that of firmness and decision, perhaps with the accessory idea of aggressive bold ness. It is taken in the stronger sense of impudent by several of the ancient versions. DeDieu and Capellus (the two Ludovici, as Vitringa calls them) would read TSib so as to secure a parallel to asba in the other clause. (Compare Ps. 114: 1.) A people deep of lipfrom hearing i. e. too obscure for thee to understand. Deep is referred to the sound of the voice, the mode of utterance, by the Septuagint (ftu&vqxovov), Clericus (e pro/undo gutture loquentem), and Vitringa, who illustrates the expression by the difference between the utterance of the Swiss and the Saxons on the one hand and the French and English on the other. But the later writers more correctly understand deep as denoting obscure or unintelligible. The preposition before hearing, though not directly negative, is virtually so, as it denotes away from, which is really equivalent to 50 as not to hear or be heard. (See the note on ch. 5: 6.) Barbarous tongue (or of a barbarous tongue), without meaning (literally, there is no meaning). The verb asb, in its other forms, means to mock or scoff, an idea closely connected, in the Hebrew usage, with that of foreign language, either because the latter seems ridiculous to those who do not understand it, or because unmeaning jargon is often used in mockery. Jerome’s translation of the last phrase, in quo nulla est sapientia, changes the meaning of the clause entirely. Some of the latest German writers understand it to signify not only unintelligible but unmeaning, and regard the description as an illustration of Jewish narrowness and prejudice. The parallelism might have taught them that no more was meant to be conveyed than the actual want of meaning to the hearers. The whole is a mere periphrastic description of a people altogether strange and foreign. Henderson supposes the expressions to refer to the Medo-Persian mercenaries in the Assyrian army, but most interpreters apply them directly to the Assyrians themselves. According to Gill, the language here meant is the Latin; but the people he explains to be both Turks and Papists.
20. Behold Zion the city of our festivals. Instead of the presence of foreign enemies, see Jerusalem once more the scene of stated solemnities. Houbigant and Lowth, on the alleged authority of the Targum, read thou shalt see, which is not only unnecessary but less expressive than the direct command to see the object as already present. The address is to the people as an individual, and not to Zion itself, as Luther and the Targum have it. Thine eyes shall see Jerusalem a quiet home, a tent (that) shall not be removed (or taken down). The whole of this description is drawn from the usages of the nomadic life. Its stakes shall not be pulled up forever, and all its cords shall not be broken, or in our idiom, none of its cords shall be broken. According to Kimchi, r'&}> means for a long time (n -JST); according lo Henderson, until the end of the old dispensation. The peculiar beauty of the imagery lies in ascribing permanence to a tent, which from its very nature must be movable. This may either imply a previous state of agitation and instability, or that the church, though weak in herself, should be strengthened and established by the power of God. Gill understands the verse as describing what he calls the philadelphian church state. Con rad Pellican applies it to the rest and peace of heaven, Vitringa to the state of the Jews under the Maccabees, considered as a type of the Christian church. He also robs the passage of its beautiful simplicity, by making it the language of a choir of teachers, or of the Prophet speaking in their name, and by giving to each part of the tent a specific spiritual sense, the stakes being the promises, and the ropes the hope and faith of true believers. On this mode of expounding the prophetic figures, see the exposition of ch. 5: 3.
21. But there shall Jehovah be mighty for us (or in our behalf). Some take the particles ex ^a separately, as meaning because certainly. There is no need, however, of departing from the ordinary sense of but, which the phrase has elsewhere after a negation. The connexion of the verses is that Zion shall never be weakened or removed, but on the contrary Jehovah etc. The construction of -mx as a mere epithet of mm is forbidden by the collocation of the words. The sense seems to be that he will there display his power for our protection and advantage. A. place of rivers, streams, broad (on) both hands (or sides), i. e. completely surrounding her. Cocceius connects this clause with the verb of the preceding verse (thine eyes shall see a place etc.) and throws the immediately foregoing words into a parenthesis. J. D. Michaelis supplies we have. But most interpreters connect these words directly with Jehovah. Of these some suppose cipa to be used like the Latin loco meaning in the place, instead. The promise then is that Jehovah will supply the place of streams and rivers. Others more boldly put D”.pa in apposition with mm, and explain the clause to mean that Jehovah will himself be a place of streams and rivers to the people. Clericus supposes the allusion to nomadic life to be still continued, and the people to be described as encamping on the banks of noble streams, but without incurring the dangers usually incident to such a situation. Accord ing to Gill, the ideas meant to be conveyed are those of abundance, freedom, pleasant situation and security. Many interpreters suppose the situation of Jerusalem to be here compared with that of Nineveh, Memphis, and other cities situated on great rivers, the want of which advantage was abundantly compensated by the divine protection. But the latest German writers understand the clause as meaning that God himself would be to Zion what moats and trenches are to fortified cities. This idea is neither natural in itself nor naturally suggested by the words streams and rivers, the plurals of the terms which are commonly applied to the Nile and the Euphrates. The most obvious explanation seems to be that this clause is an amplification of the adverb sai. Jehovah will be mighty for us there. What place is meant? A place of rivers and streams broad on both sides, i. e. spreading in every direction. There is the less occasion, therefore, to read c’lj with Lowth or Qto with Koppe. The situation described is one which has all the advantages of mighty streams without their dangers. There shall not go in it an oared vessel (literally, a ship of oar), and a gallant ship shall not pass through it. The parallel expressions both refer, no doubt, to ships of war, which in ancient times were propelled by oars. The antithesis which some assume between trading ships and vessels of war would here be out of place. The fine old English phrase gallant ship is ill exchanged by some translators for mighty or magnificent vessel.
22. For Jehovah our Judge, Jehovah our Lawgiver, Jehovah our King, he will save us. This is a repetition of the same idea, but without the figures of the preceding verse. Ewald agrees with the older writers in making Jehovah the subject and the other nouns the predicates of a series of short sentences (Jehovah is our Judge etc.). Gesenius makes them all the complex subject of the verb at the end. The general meaning is the same in either case.
23. Thy ropes are cast loose; they do not hold upright their mast; they do not spread the sail; then is shared plunder of booty in plenty; the lame spoil the spoil. Cocceius refers the first clause to the tent (thy cords are lengthened) and the rest to a ship. Clericus makes the whole relate to a tent, and supposes “pn to denote the central pole or post. Interpreters are agreed, however, that there is, at the beginning of this verse, a sudden apostrophe to the enemy considered as a ship. This figure would be naturally suggested by those of v. 21. It was there said that no vessel should approach the holy city. But now the Prophet seems to remember that one had done so, the proud ship of Assyria. But what was its fate? He sees it dismantled and abandoned to its enemies. The first phrase is rendered in Robinson’s Gesenius, thy tacklings are broken in pieces, an expression which could hardly be applied to ropes. The Rabbins understand it to mean, thy ropes are abandoned by the sailors. The Vulgate version is laxati sunt. The last two explanations may be combined by supposing the words to mean that they cast the ropes loose and abandon them. Kimchi explains “p as an adverb meaning well or rightly; Cocceius as a noun, meaning the base or socket of the mast. This last is adopted by most of the late writers; but an equally natural construction is to make “p an adjeclive meaning upright, which is justified by usage and peculiarly appropriate in this connexion. Some take 02 in its more usual sense of flag or banner, without materially changing that of the whole sentence, tx marks the transition from abandonment to plunder, whether past or future. bVr “ir appears to be an emphatic pleonasm or reduplication. The eagerness of the pillage is expressed by making the lame join in it.
24. And the inhabitant shall not say, I am sick (or have been sick). This may either mean that none shall be sick, or that those who have been so shall be recovered. Some interpreters suppose an allusion to the plague. The people dwelling in it (is) forgiven (its) iniquity. Some suppose this to be an explanation of the sickness mentioned in the first clause, as a spiritual malady. Others understand it as explaining bodily disease to be the consequence and punishment of sin. The words may be taken in a wider sense than either of these, namely, that suffering shall cease with sin which is its cause. Thus understood, the words are strictly applicable only to a state of things still future, either upon earth or in heaven. The last clause shows the absurdity of making the first mean merely that no one shall excuse himself from joining in the pillage on the plea of sickness.
