HERE again we meet with the most discordant and unfounded assumptions, as to the connexion of this chapter with the context, and arising from the same misapprehension of the general design of the whole prophecy. Hitzig, because he cannot make it fit into an artificial system of his own, involving the hypothesis of several successive compositions, corresponding to the progress of events under Cyrus, arbitrarily describes it as an insulated prophecy, older than those which now precede it, and afterwards wrought into its present place. In support of this violent and desperate assumption he appeals to the close connexion between the last verse of ch. XLVI. and the first of ch. XLVIII; an argument which might be used, with equal plausibility, to throw out any portion of the book, because throughout these later prophecies certain apostrophes and other formulas are constantly recurring at irregular intervals. Hendewerk, on the other hand, so far from seeing any want of continuity between this chapter and the two before and after it, represents the three as constituting a “ cycle” or division of a cycle. But even those who hold a middle course between these violent extremes commit the usual error of inverting the legitimate relation of the topics to each other, by making the prediction of the downfal of Babylon the Prophet’s main theme, and not a specific illustration of it. The difficulties which this false assumption has occasioned with respect to the arrangement of the chapter will be seen below from the interpretation of the fourth verse. Another undesirable effect of the same error is the necessity imposed upon some eminent interpreters, Vitringa for example, of superadding to their exposition of the chapter an account of what they call its mystical sense, that is to say, the application of its terms in the New Testament to Rome, both Pagan and Apostate (Rev. xviii). Such a proceeding may be looked upon as necessary on the supposition that the Babylon here threatened is the great theme of the prophecy; but if it is merely introduced as a remarkable example of God’s dealings with his enemies and those of his people, it is difficult to see why its images and terms may not be used in other prophecies directed against other objects, without compelling us to comprehend those objects in the proper scope of the original prediction. Cowper has para phrased the song of Israel over the fallen king of Babylon in ch. xm, and put it in the mouth of the Peruvian Incas upbraiding their Spanish tyrants. If it could now be proved that Cowper was inspired when he wrote this poem, would it follow that the thirteenth chapter of Isaiah had reference either literal or mystical to Pizarro or Peru? If this would not be a legitimate conclusion in the supposed case, then all the facts of the real case may be sufficiently accounted for, by simply assuming that the costume of this prophecy was reproduced by inspiration in another, on a subject similar but not identical; that this new prophecy is not a repetition or an explanation but at most an imitation of the old one; and finally that what Vitringa calls the mystical sense of the chapter now before us is really the strict sense of another passage, and belongs therefore not to the interpretation of Isaiah but to that of the Apocalypse. The following seems to be the true analysis. Having exemplified his general doctrine, as to God’s ability and purpose to do justice both to friends and foes, by exhibiting the downfal of the Babylonian idols, he now attains the same end by predicting the downfal of Babylon itself and of the state to which it gave its name. Under the figure of a royal virgin, she is threatened with extreme degradation and exposure, vs. 1-3. Connecting this event with Israel and Israel’s God, as the great themes which it was intended to illustrate, v. 4, he predicts the fall of the empire more distinctly, v. 5, and assigns as a reason the oppression of God’s people, v. 6, pride and self-confidence, vs. 7-9, especially reliance upon human wisdom and upon superstitious arts, all which would prove entirely insufficient to prevent the great catastrophe, vs. 10-15.
V, 1. Come down! By a beautiful apostrophe, the mighty power to be humbled is addressed directly, and the prediction of her humiliation clothed in the form of a command to exhibit the external signs of it.—Sit on the dust! This, which is the literal translation of the Hebrew phrase, may be conformed to our idiom either by substituting in for on, or by under standing 153 to denote, as it sometimes does, the solid ground. (See ch. 2:19, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 35.) The act of sitting on the ground is elsewhere mentioned as a customary sign of grief. (See ch. 3: 26. Lam. 2: 10. Job 2: 13.) But here it is designed, chiefly if not exclusively, to suggest the idea of dethronement which is afterwards expressed distinctly. — The next phrase is commonly explained to mean virgin, daughter of Babel (i. e. Babylon), which, according to Gesenius, is a collective personification of the inhabitants. But as nb*ns, notwithstanding sis construct form, is really in apposition with rs (virgin daughter), so ^3 may be in apposition with b:m (daughter Babel), and denote not the daughter of Babylon, but Babylon itself, personified as a virgin and a daughter, in which case the latter word may have the wide sense of the French filk, and be really synonymous with virgin. (See ch. 37: 22, and die Earlier Prophecies, p. 616.) But whatever may be the primary import of the phrase, it is admitted upon all hands to be descriptive either of the city of Babylon, or of the Babylonian state and nation. Whether that power is described as a virgin because hitherto unconquered, is much more doubtful, as this explanation seems to mar the simplicity of the description by confounding the sign with the thing signified.—Sit to the earth! i. e. close to it, or simply on it, as in Ps. 9: 5, where the vague sense of the particle is determined by the verb and noun with which it stands connected. To sit as to a throne can only mean to sit upon it. There is no throne. Some connect this with what goes before, in this way: sit on the earth without a throne But there is no need of departing from the idiomatic form of the original, in which these words are a complete proposition, which may be connected with what goes before by supplying a causal particle: i *sit on the earth, for you have now no throne.’—Daughter of Chasdim!* This last is the common Hebrew name for the Chaldees or Chaldeans, the race introduced by the Assyrians, at an early period, into Babylonia. (See ch. 23: 13, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 411. Compare also what is said above, on ch. 43: 14.) If taken here in this sense, it may be understood to signify the government or the collective members of this race. Rosen-
miiller applies it to the city, and supposes it to be so called because built by the Chaldeans. But this is equally at variance with history and with the analogy of other cases where a like explanation would be inadmissible, Daughter of Chasdim must of course be an analogous expression to the parallel phrase daughter of Babel, which certainly cannot mean a city built by Babylon. Besides the strict use of D^bs as a plural, it is unequivocally used now and then as the name of the country, analogous to tnito which is a dual. See for example Jer. 51: 24, 35, where we read of the ‘inhabitants of Chasdim, and Ezek. 16: 29, where it takes the local or directive n. If the word be so explained in this case, it will make the correspondence of the clauses still more exact.—.For thou shalt not add (or continue} to be called, would be the natural and usual conclusion of the phrase; instead of which we have here they shall not call thee, which is common enough as an indefinite expression equivalent to a passive, and only remarkable ‘from its combination with the preceding words, although the sense of the whole clause is quite obvious. Thou shalt not continue to be called (or they shall no longer call thee) tender and delicate, i. e. they shall no longer have occasion so to call thee, because thou shalt no longer be so. The same two epithets are found in combination Deut. 28: 54, from which place it is clear that they are not so much descriptive of voluptuous and vicious habits as of a delicate and easy mode of life, such as that of a princess compared with that of a female slave. The testimonies of the ancient writers as to the prevalent iniquities of Babylon belong rather to a subsequent part of the description. All that is here meant is that the royal virgin must descend from the throne to the dust, and relinquish the luxuries and comforts of her former mode of life.
2. Take mill-stones and grind meal! Even among the Romans this was considered one of the most servile occupations. In the east it was especially the work of female slaves. (Ex. 11:5. Matth. 24: 41.)
Uncover (i. e. lift up or remove) thy veil! One of the Arabian poets speaks of certain ladies as appearing unveiled so that they resembled slaves, which is exactly the idea here expressed. Vitringa and others render r^as thy hair or thy braided locks, which rests on an Arabic analogy, as the sense of veil, now commonly adopted, does on Chaldee usage. The parallel word fcafc is also understood by some as meaning hair, by others the foot, or the sleeve; but most interpreters are now agreed in giving it the sense of slcirt, and to the whole phras.e that of lift up (literally strip) thy skirt (or train), corresponding to the lifting of the veil in the preceding clause.— Uncover the leg, cross streams! The only question as to this clause is whether it refers, as Gesenius and Ewald think, to the fording of rivers by female captives as they go into exile, or to the habitual exposure of the person, by which women of the lowest class are especially distinguished in the east. The latter explanation, which is that of Vitringa, is entitled to the preference, not only because we read of no deportation of the Babylonians by Cyrus, but because the other terms of the description are confessedly intended to contrast two conditions of life or classes of society.
3. The same idea of exposure is now carried out to a revolting extreme. Let thy nakedness be uncovered, likewise let thy shame be seen. This conveys no new idea, but is simply the climax of the previous description.—I will take vengeance. The metaphor is here exchanged for literal expressions by so easy a transition that it scarcely attracts notice. The destruction of Babylon is frequently set forth as a righteous retribution for the wrongs of Israel. (See Jer. 50: 15, 28.)—I will not (or I shall not) meet a man. Of the various and discordant explanations of this clause, it will suffice to mention one or two of the most current or most plausible. Some give WB the sense which it has elsewhere when followed by the preposition 2, viz. that of interceding. Thus Jarchi understands the words to mean, I will not intercede with (or solicit) any man to avenge me, but avenge myself. Grotius gives the verb the sense of admitting intercession; and Lowth, for the same purpose, reads 3”Bx in the Hiphil form (neither will I suffer man to intercede with me). Gesenius, in his Commentary, traces an affinity between SttB and ^£5 to visit, and explains the clause to mean 1 will spare no man. In his Thesaurus he connects it with 553, nrflvvw, and -padscar, and agrees with Maurer in translating, I will strike (or ratify) a league with no man. But the explanation most agreeable to usage, and at the same time simplest as to syntax, is, I shall (or will) meet no man. This is not to be understood, however, with Vitringa, as meaning that he would find no one to avenge him, or that if he did not he would still avenge himself. The true sense is that expressed by Rosenmuller, I shall encounter no man, i. e. no man will be able to resist me. This simple explanation is at the same time one of the most ancient, as we find it distinctly expressed by Symmachus (om avziaiqasTni pot av&Qwaos) and in the Vulgate (non resistet mihi homo).—Independently of these minuter questions, it is clear that the whole clause is a laconic explanation of the figures which precede, and which are summed up in the simple but terrific notion of resistless and inexorable venp-eance. D
4. Our Redeemer (or as for our Redeemer), Jehovah of Hosts (is) his name, the Holy One of Israel. The downfal of Babylon was but a proof that the Deliverer of Israel was a sovereign and eternal being, and yet bound to his own people in the strongest and tenderest covenant relation. Thus understood, the verse does not even interrupt the sense, but makes it clearer, by recalling to the reader’s mind the great end for which the event took place and for which it is here predicted. Compare with this Lowth’s pedantic supposition of a chorus, which is scarcely more natural than that of a committee or a jury, and Eichhorn’s deplorable suggestion that the verse is a devout reflection of some Jewish reader, accidentally transplanted from the margin to the text. This is justly represented by Gesenius as a make shift (Nothbchelf), a description equally appropriate to many of his own erasures elsewhere, if not to his extravagant assumption here, that the words thus saith have been left out at the beginning of the sentence. Maurer improves upon this strange exegetical device by making the verse merely introductory to that which follows, Thus saith our Redeemer, whose name is Jehovah of Hosts, the Holy One of Israel, Sit in silence etc. In this way every thing may easily be made to denote any thing. The only tenable conclusion is the obvious and simple one, that this is a distinct link in the chain of the prophetic argument, by which the fall of Babylon is brought into connexion and subordination to the proof of God’s supremacy as shown in the protection and salvation of his people. That the Prophet speaks here in his own person, is but a single instance of a general usage, characteristic of the whole composition, in which God is spoken of, spoken to, or introduced as speaking, in constant alternation; yet without confusion or the slightest obscuration of the general meaning.
5. Sit silent (or in silence), and go into darkness (or a dark place), daughter of Chasdim! The allusion is to natural and usual expressions of sorrow arid despondency. (See Lam. 2: 10. 3: 2, 28.) The explanation of darkness as a metaphor for prison does not suit the context, and is no more natural or necessary here than in ch. 42: 7.—For thou shalt not continue to be called (or they shall not continue to call thee) mistress of kingdoms. This is an allusion to the Babylonian empire, as distinguished from Babylonia proper, and including many tributary states, which Xenophon enumerates. In like manner the Assyrian king is made to ask (ch. JO: 8), Are not my princes altogether kings?
6. I was wroth against my people; I profaned my heritage, i. e. I suffered my chosen and consecrated people to be treated as something common and unclean. In the same sense God is said before (ch. 43:28) to have profaned the holy princes. Israel is called Jehovah’s heritage, as being his perpetual possession, continued from one generation to another. This general import of the figure is obvious enough, although there is an essential difference between this case and that of literal inheritance, because in the latter the change and succession affect the proprietor, whereas in the former they affect the thing possessed, and the possessor is unchangeable.— And I gave them into thy hand, as my instruments of chastisement. Thou didst not show them mercy, literally place (give or appoint) it to them. God’s providential purpose was not even known to his instruments, and could not therefore be the rule of their conduct or the measure of their responsibility. Though unconsciously promoting his designs, their own ends and motives were entirely corrupt. In the precisely analogous case of the Assyrian, it is said (ch. 10:7), he will not think so, and his heart not so will purpose, because to destroy (is) in his heart and to cut off nations not a few.—The general charge is strengthened by a specific aggravation. On the aged thou didst aggravate thy yoke (or make it heavy) exceedingly. Koppe, Gesenius, Maurer, and Hitzig understand this of the whole people, whom they suppose to be described as old, i. e. as having reached the period of natural decrepitude. Umbreit agrees with Grotius and Vitringa in preferring the strict sense of the words, viz. that they were cruelly oppressive even to the aged captives, under which Vitringa is disposed to include elders in office and in rank as well as in age. This particular form of inhumanity is charged upon the Babylonians by Jeremiah twice (Lam. 4: 1.6. 5: 12), and in both cases he connects E-^T. with a parallel term denoting rank or office, viz. priests and princes. Between the two interpretations of the clause which have been stated, Knobel undertakes to steer a middle course, by explaining “ijrt to mean aged in the strict sense, but supposing at the same time that this single act of tyranny is put for inhumanity in general. (Compare Deut. 28: 50.) The essential meaning of the clause, as a description of inordinate severity to those least capable of retaliation or resistance, still remains the same in either case.
7. And thou saidst, For ever I shall be a mistress, i. e. a mistress of kingdoms, the complete phrase which occurs above in v. 5. The sense of queen is therefore wholly inadequate, unless we understand it to mean queen of queens or queen of kings. The ellipsis suggested may perhaps account for the use of what might seem to be a construct form, instead of the synonymous ft^aa (I Kings 11: 19). Hitzig, however, goes too far when he makes this a ground for disregarding the accentuation and connecting the two words 1$ rras. in the sense of a mistress of eternity, i. e. a perpetual mistress. (Compare Gen, 49: 26. Hab. 3: 6. Is. 9: 5.) As examples of the segholate termination of the absolute form, Maurer cites nMlbizJ (Ez. 16: 30) and n^x (Ez. 17: 8). Hitzig also objects to the masoretic interpunction, that it requires 1? to be taken in the sense of so that, contrary to usage. But this, though assumed by Gesenius and most of the other modern writers, is entirely gratuitous. The conjunction has its proper sense of until, as in Job 14:6. 1 Sam. 20: 41; and the meaning of the clause is, that she had persisted in this evil course until at last it had its natural effect of blind-
ing the mind and hardening the heart. Thou saidst, For ever I shall be a mistress, till (at last) thou didst not lay these (things) to thy heart. The idea of causal dependence (so that) is implied but not expressed. Laying to heart, including an exercise of intellect and feeling, occurs, with slight variations as to form, in ch. 42: 25. 44: 19. 46: 8.— Thou didst not remember the end (or latter part, or issue) of it, i. e. of the course pursued, the feminine pronoun being put for a neuter as in ch. 46: 11. and often elsewhere. The apparent solecism of remembering the future may be solved by observing that the thing forgotten was the knowledge of the future once possessed, just as in common parlance we use hope in reference to the past, because we hope to find it so, or hope that something questionable now will prove hereafter to be thus and thus.
8. And now, a common form of logical resumption and conclusion, very nearly corresponding to our phrases, this being so, or, such being the case.—Hear this, i. e. what I have just said, or am just about to say, or both.— Oh voluptuous one! The common version, thou that art given to pleasures, is substantially correct, but in form too paraphrastical. The translation delicate, which some give, is inadequate, at least upon the common supposition that this term is not intended, like the kindred ones in v. 1, to contrast the two conditions of prosperity and downfal, but to bring against the Babylonians the specific charge of gross licentiousness, in proof and illustration of which Vitringa quotes the words of Quintus Curlius: nihil wbis ejus corruptius moribus, nee ad irritandas illiciendasque immodicas voluptates instructius, to which, after certain gross details, the historian adds, Babylonii maxime in vinum et quae ebrietatem sequuntur effusi sunt. This corruption of morals, as in other like cases, is supposed to have been aggravated by the wealth of Babylon, its teeming population, and the vast con course of foreign visitors and residents. After all, however, as this charge is not repeated or insisted on, it may be doubted whether the epithet in question was intended to express more than the fact of her abundant pro sperity about to be exchanged for desolation and disgrace.—The (one) sitting in security. The common version, dwellest, is as much too vague as that of Ewald, which explains it to mean sitting on a throne, is too specific. Sitting seems rather to be mentioned as a posture of security and ease.— The (one) saying in her heart (or to herself), I (am) and none besides, i. e. none like or equal to me. There has been much dispute respecting the precise sense of ^osx; but the question is only of grammatical importance, as all admit that the whole phrase w ^GSX is equivalent in import to the common one lis bpK (ch. 45: 5, 6, 18, etc.). The only doubt is whether hCBX is simply negative like “px, or exceptive (besides me), or at the same time negative and exceptive (none besides me). This double explanation is C H APT E R XL VII.
given by Noldius and Vitringa, but is justly regarded by the later writers as untenable. Cocceius makes it mean besides me, and assumes an interrogation, which is altogether arbitrary. De Dieu adopts the same construction, but suggests that •’tax may mean only I, as &sx certainly means only in Num. 22:35. 23: 13. This is adopted by Gesenius in his Commentary. Hitzig objects that ii’s is then superfluous, and that analogy would require h5N sax. He therefore makes it simply exceptive (besides me), and supposes an ellipsis of the negative. Rosenmuller. Ewald, Umbreit, Knobel, and Gesenius in the notes to the second edition of his version, follow J. H. Michaelis in making it a paragogic form and simply negative (there is no other, or none besides). Maurer goes further, and explains lis as a substantive dependent on the construct form before it; literally, nothing of more. The sentiment expressed is that of Martial with respect to Rome, cui par est nihil et nihil secundum. (Compare the words of Nebuchadnezzar, Dan. 4:30.) There is even an assumption of divine supremacy in these words, when compared with the frequent use of the pronoun I, in the solemn declarations of Jehovah (ch. 45:6, 12. 43: 11, etc.).— I shall not sit (as) a widow. The figure of a virgin is now exchanged for that of a wife, a strong proof that the sign was, in the writer’s view, of less importance than the thing signified. It is needless to inquire, with Vitringa, whether the husband, whose loss is here implied, be the king or the chief men collectively. It is not the city or the state of which widowhood is directly predicated, but the royal personage that represents it. The same comparison is used by Jeremiah of Jerusalem (Lam. I: 1. Compare Is. 51: 18-20. 54: 1, 4, 5. Rev. 14: 7). According to J. D. Michaelis, the state is the mother, the soldiers or citizens her sons, and the king her husband, which he illustrates by the use of the title Dey and other terms of relationship to designate the state, the government, etc. in Algiers and other parts of Barbary. To sit as a widow is considered by Gesenius as suggesting the idea of a mourner; yet in his German version he omits the word entirely, and translates, ‘ I shall never be a widow,’ in which he is closely followed by De Wette. All the interpreters, from Grotius to Ewald, seem to understand widowhood as a specific figure for the loss of a king; but Knobel boldly questions it, and applies the whole clause to the loss of allies, or of all friendly intercourse with foreign nations.— And I shall not know (by experience) the loss of children. This paraphrastical expression is the nearest approach that we can make in English to the pregnant Hebrew word Visas. Bereavement. and childlessness may seem at first sight more exact, but the first is not exclusively appropriate to the loss of children, and the last does not suggest the idea of loss at all. This last clause is paraphrased by Noyes, nor see myself childless; better by Henderson, nor know what it is to be childless.
9. And they shall come to thee. The form of expression seems to have some reference to the phrase I shall not ~know in the preceding verse. As if he had said, they shall no longer be unknown or at a distance, they shall come near to thee.— These two, or both these (things), from which she thought herself secure for ever.—Suddenly. stt’i is a noun, and originally means the twinkling of an eye and then a moment, but is often used adverbially in the sense of suddenly. That it has the derivative sense here may be inferred from the addition of the words in one day, which would be a striking anticlimax if san strictly meant a moment or the twinkling of an eye. This objection is but partially removed by Lowth’s change of the iriterpunction (these two things in a moment, in one day loss of children and widowhood!}, because the first expression is still much the strongest, unless we understand in one day to express not mere rapidity or suddenness but the concurrence of the two privations.—Loss of children and widow hood, as in the verse preceding, are explained by most interpreters as figures for the loss of king and people.—In their perfection, literally, according to it, i. e. in the fullest measure possible, implying total loss and destitution.— They have come upon thee. The English Version makes it future like the verb in the preceding clause; but this is wholly arbitrary. There is less objection to the present form adopted by the modern German writers; but according to the principle already stated and exemplified so often, it is best to give the word its proper meaning, and to understand it not as a mere repetition of what goes before, but as an addition to it, or at least a variation in the mode of exhibition. What he at first saw coming, he now sees actually come, and describes it accordingly.—Of the a in the next clause there are three interpretations. Ewald agrees with the English Version and the Vulgate in explaining it to mean propter, on account of, and supposing it to bring a new specific charge against the Babylonians, by assigning a new cause for their destruction, viz. their cultivation of the occult arts. Gesenius and the other recent writers follow Calvin and Vitringa in making it mean notwithstanding as in ch. 5: 25. and Num. 14:11. There is then no new charge or reason assigned, but a simple declaration of the insufficiency of superstitious arts to save them. But a better course than either is to give the particle its proper sense of in or in the midst of, which suggests both the other ideas, but expresses more, viz. that they should perish in the very act of using these unlawful and unprofitable means of preservation.—In the multitude of thy enchantments, in the abundance of thy spells (or charms). The parallel terms, though applied to the same objects, are of different origin, the first denoting primarily prayers or acts of worship, and then superstitious rites; the other specifically meaning bans or spells (from -en to bind), with reference, as Gesenius supposes, to the outward act of tying magical ^knots, CHAPTER XLVI I. but as the older writers think, to the restraining or constraining influence supposed to be exerted on the victim or even on the gods themselves. The construction of ^XE here is unusual. Gesenius regards it as immediatelydependent upon nvsy although separated from it by an intervening word, the multitude of strength i. e. the strong multitude of thy enchantments. Maurer says that Xx^ is construed as an adjective; while Hitzig makes it as usual an adverb, qualifying firsts), which is here equivalent to an infinitive. In either case the sense is essentially the same, viz. that of very powerful, or very numerous, or very powerful and numerous enchantments. The prevalence of these arts in ancient Babylon is explicitly affirmed by Diodorus Siculus, and assumed as a notorious fact by other ancient writers.
10. And (yet) thou art (or wast) secure in thy wickedness. Vitringa and most of the later writers have thou trustedst in thy wickedness, but differ as to the precise sense of the last word, some referring it, with Jerome, to the occult arts of the preceding verse, others making it denote specifically tyranny or fraud, or both combined as in ch. 33: 1. But even in the places which are cited in proof of this specific explanation (such asch. 13: 11. Nah. 3: 9, etc.), the restriction is either suggested by the context or entirely gratuitous. There is therefore no sufficient reason for departing from the wide sense of the word as descriptive of the whole congeries of crimes with which the Babylonians were chargeable. But neither in the wide nor the restricted sense could their wickedness itself be an object of trust. It is better, there fore, to give the verb the absolute meaning which it frequently has elsewhere, and to explain the whole phrase as denoting that they went on in their wickedness without a fear of change or punishment. In this way, moreover, we avoid the necessity of multiplying the specific charges against Babylon, by giving to the Prophet’s words a technical and formal meaning which they will not naturally bear. Thus Vitringa introduces this verse as the statement of a fourth crime or impulsive cause of Babylon’s destruction, namely, her wickedness (malitia); and as this of course includes all the rest, he is under the necessity of explaining it to mean specifically cunning and reliance on it. The construction which has been proposed above may be the one assumed in the Vulgate (fiduciam habuisti in malitia tua); but the only modern version where I find it expressed is that of Augusti (du warst sicher bei deiner Bosheit), which De Wette, in his improved version, has abandoned for the old one. The idea of security in wickedness agrees precisely with what follows.— Thou hast said, there is no one seeing me, a form of speech frequently ascribed to presumptuous sinners and unbelievers in the doctrine of providential retribution. (See Ps. 10: 11. 94:7. Ezek. 8: 12. 9:9. Job 22: 14.) This, on the other hand, is not a natural expression of specific trust in any form of wickedness. He who relies upon his power or his cunning as a complete protection will be not so apt to say “ None seeth me” as to feel indifferent whether he is seen or not.—Thy wisdom and thy knowledge, it has seduced thee. The insertion of the pronoun (son) admits of a twofold explanation. It may mean thy very wisdom, upon which thou hast so long relied for guidance, has itself misled thee. But at the same time it may serve to show that wisdom and knowledge are not here to be distinguished but considered as identical. He does not say thy wisdom and knowledge they have, but it has, seduced thee. By wisdom and knowledge some understand astronomy and astrology, others political sagacity and diplomatic skill, for which it is inferred that the Babylonians were distinguished, from the places where their wise men are particularly mentioned. (See for example Jer. 50: 35. 51: 57.) But in these descriptions of the Babylonian empire, and the analogous accounts of Tyre (Ezek. 28: 4) and Egypt (Is. 19: 11), the reference seems not so much to any thing peculiar to the state in question, as to that peculiar political wisdom which is presupposed in the very existence, much more in the prosperity, of every great empire. Gesenius understands these expressions as ironical, an indirect denial that they were possessed of wisdom. But this is an unnecessary supposition, and not entirely consistent with the tone of the whole context. It was probably not merely the conceit of knowledge but its actual possession that had led the Babylonians astray. The verb said means to turn aside (convert) from one course to another, and is used both in a good sense and a bad one. An example of the former may be found below in ch. 49: 5, and of the latter here, where the word means not exactly to pervert, or as Lowth translates it, to pervert the mind, but rather to misguide, seduce, or lead astray, like rrjn in ch. 44: 20. Thy knowledge and thy wisdom, it has seduced thee.—The remainder of the verse describes the effect of this perversion or seduction in the same terms that had been employed above in v. 8, and which occur elsewhere only in Zeph. 2:15, which appears to be an imitation of the place before us, and not its original as Hitzig and others arbitrarily assume.—And thou saidst (or hast said) in thy heart. The indirect construction, so that thou hftst said, contains more than is expressed, but not more than is implied, in the original.—I am and there is no other. J. D. Michaelis understands this boast to mean, I am Babylon and there is no other. But most interpreters prefer the general meaning, I arn what no one else is; there is no one like me, much less equal to me. (See above, on v. 8.) This arrogant presumption is ascribed to their wisdom and knowledge, not as its legitimate effect, but as a necessary consequence of its perversion and abuse, as well as of men’s native disposition to exaggerate the force and authority of unassisted reason. (Compare ch. 5: 21, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 78.)
11. And (so) there cometh (or has come) upon thee evil; with an evident allusion to the use of nsn in the verse preceding, so as to suggest an antithesis between natural and moral evil, sin and suffering, evil done and evil experienced. The vav at the beginning is not properly conversive, as it does not depend upon a foregoing future (Nordheimer $ 219); so that the common version (therefore shall evil come) is not strictly accurate. Most of the modern writers make it present; but the strict sense of the preterite is perfectly consistent with the context and the usage of the Prophet, who continually depicts occurrences still future, first as coming, then as come, not in fact but in vision, both as certain to occur and as historically represented to his own mind. The phrase come upon is explained by Vitringa as implying descent from above or infliction by a higher power.—Of the next clause there are several distinct interpretations, all of which agree in making it descriptive of the evil threatened in the one before it. From the use of the verb nnia in Ps. 73: 34 and elsewhere, Lowth and others give it here the sense of intercession (thou shalt not know how to deprecate), which seems to be also given in the Targum and approved by Jarchi. Jerome takes lira as a noun meaning dawn, and understands by it the origin or source of the calamity (nescis ortum ejus). in which he is followed by Vitringa and Rosenmuller, who appear however to apply the term, not merely to the source of the evil, but to the time of its commencement, which should be like a day without a dawn, i. e. sudden and without premonition. There is something so unnatural, however, and at variance with usage, in the representation of misfortune as a dawning day, that Gesenius, Maurer, and Umbreit, who retain the same translation of the word, reverse the sense of the whole phrase by supposing it to mean not a preceding but a following dawn; in which case the evil is described not as a day without a dawn before it, but as a night without a dawning after it,—a figure natural and striking in itself, and very strongly recommended by the use of “ifitiJ in the same sense by Isaiah elsewhere. (See ch. 8: 20, and the Earlier Prophecies, p. 149.) Hitzig and Ewald still prefer, however, the hypothesis of J. D. Michael is and others, who identify inttj with the Arabic *£?, and explain it either as a noun (against which thou hast no charm) or as an infinitive (thou shalt not know how to charm or conjure it away). This construction has the advantage of creating a more perfect correspondence between this word and the similar verbal form (^s?) with which the next clause ends. Grotius and Clericus appear to regard “inta as a mere poetical equivalent to day, which is highly improbable and not at all sustained by usage.—And there shall fall upon thee (a still stronger expression than the one before it, there shall come upon thee) ruin. According to the modern lexicographers, the noun itself means fall, but in its figurative application to destruction or calamity. It occurs only here and in Ezek. 7: 26.—Thou shalt not be able 10 to avert it, or resolving the detached Hebrew clauses into one English period^ which thou shalt not be able to avert. The exact meaning of the last word is atone for, expiate, and in this connexion, to avert by expiation, whether in the strict sense of atoning sacrifice or in the wider one of satisfaction and propitiation. If we assume a personification of the evil, the verb may mean to appease, as in Gen. 3*2: 21. Prov. 16: 14. In any case, the clause describes the threatened judgment as inexorable and inevitable. — And there shall come upon thee suddenly a crash, — or as J. D. Michaelis renders it, a crashing fall, & common metaphor for sudden ruin, — (which) thou shalt not know. This may either mean, of which thou shalt have no previous experience, or of which thou shalt have no previous expectation. The former meaning is the one most readily suggested by the words. The latter may be justified by the analogy of Job 9: 5, who removeth the mountains and they know not, which can only mean that he removes them suddenly or unawares. Because the same verb Wfi in the first clause governs a follow ing word (thou shalt not know its dawn, or how to conjure it away), Lowth adopts Seeker’s hint that a similar dependent word has here been lost, but does not venture to determine what it was, though he thinks it may have been nwa t^s, as in Jer. 11:11.
12. Stand now! It must be borne in mind that s: is not a particle of time but of entreaty, very often corresponding to I pray, or if you please. In this case it indicates a kind of concession to the people, if they still choose to try the virtue of their superstitious arts which he had already denounced as worthless. Some interpreters have gone too far in representing this passage as characterized by a tone of biting sarcasm. — Stand now in thy spells (or charms). Vilringa supposes an allusion to the customary standing posture of astrologers, conjurers, etc. Others understand the verb to mean stand fast, be firm and courageous. But the modern writers generally follow Lowth in understanding it to mean persist or persevere, which of course requires the preposition to be taken in its usual proper sense of in. — Persist now in thy spells and in the abundance of thy charms, the same nouns that are joined above in v. 9. In ‘‘which thou hast laboured. Gesenius in his Grammar (<§> 121. 2) mentions this as one of the only two cases in which the Hebrew relative is governed directly by a preposition, in which instead of which in them, the usual idiomatic combination. But Hitzig and Ewald do away with this exception, by supposing the particle to be dependent on the verb at the beginning, and the relative directly on the verb that follows: persist in that which (or in that respecting which) thou hast laboured (or wearied thyself; see above, on ch. 43: 22) from thy youth. This may either mean of old, or more specifically, since the earliest period of thy national existence. The antiquity of occult arts, and above all of astrology, in Babylon, is attested by various profane writers. Diodorus Siculus indeed derives them from Egypt, and describes the Chaldees or astrologers of Babylon as Egyptian colonists. But as this last is certainly erroneous (see above on v. 1); the other assertion can have no authority. The Babylonians are reported by the same and other writers to have carried back their own antiquity, as proved by recorded scientific observations, to an extravagant and foolish length, to which some think there is allusion here in the expression from tny youth.—Perhaps thou wilt be able to succeed, or keep thyself, the verb commonly translated profit. (See above, ch. 44: 10.) ^x originally means if not or whether not, but in usage corresponds more nearly to perhaps than it does to the conditional compound, if so be, which is the common English Version here. This faint suggestion of a possibility is more expressive than a positive denial.—Perhaps thou wilt grow strong, or prevail, as the ancient versions render it; or resist, as Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and Ewald explain it from an Arabic analogy; or terrify (thine adversary), as Gesenius explains it from the analogy of ch. 2: 19, 21. (Compare Ps. 10: 18 and Job 13: 25.) In either case the word is a specification of the more general term succeed or profit.
13. Thou art wearied in the multitude of thy counsel, not merely weary of it, but exhausted by it, and in the very act of using it. Tfnss seems to be a singular noun with a plural suffix, a combination which may be supposed to have arisen either from the want of any construct plural form in this case, or from a designed assimilation with the plurals in v. 12. As ah may denote either numerical multitude or aggregate abundance, it is often construed with a singular, for instance in Ps. 5: 8. 52: 9. Is. 37:24. By counsel we are not to understand the computations or conferences of the astronomers, but all the devices of the government for self-defence. The German writers have introduced an idiom of their own into the first clause •wholly foreign from the usage of the Hebrew language, by making it conditional, which Noyes has copied by giving it the form of an interrogation: art thou weary etc.? The original form is that of a short independent proposition.—Let now (or pray let) them stand and save thee. We may take stand either in the same sense which it has above in v. 12, or in that of appearing, coming forward, presenting themselves. The use of W, in the sense of rising, is erroneously alleged as a peculiar feature in the diction of these Later Prophecies.—The subject of the verbs is then defined. The dividers of the heavens, i. e. the astrologers, so called because they divided the heavens into houses with a view to their prognostications. Henderson’s reference to the twelve signs of the Zodiac is too restricted. The chethibh or textual reading (-nan) is regarded by some as an old form of the plural construct, but by others as the third person plural of the preterite, agreeing with the relative pronoun understood (who divide). Kimchi regards division as a figure for decision or determination, which is wholly unnecessary. Some read ^n, and suppose an allusion to the derivative noun in v. 12; while others trace it to the Arabic root ^£>, and suppose the phrase to mean those who know the heavens. All admit however that the general sense is correctly given by the Septuagint («<TT(>oP.o’j’o« rov OVQKVOV) and the Vulgate (augures coeli).—The same class of persons is then spoken of as star-gazers, an English phrase which well expresses the peculiar force of tp-m followed by the preposition a. Some however give the former word its frequent sense of seers or prophets, and regard what follows as a limiting or qualifying term, the whole corresponding to the English phrase star-prophets, i. e. such as prophesy by means of the stars.—The next phrase does not mean making known the new moons, for these returned at stated intervals and needed no prognosticator to reveal them. The sense is either at the new moons, or by means of the new moons, i. e. the changes of the moons, of which the former is the simpler explanation.—Interpreters are much divided as to the way in which the remaining words of this verse are to be connected with what goes before. Aben Ezra and Vitringa make the clause dependent on the verb save: ‘ Let them save them from (the things) which are about to come upon thee.’ The only objections to this construction are the distance of the words thus connected from each other, and the absolute sense which it puts upon D^^iia by removing its object. The modern writers, with a very few exceptions, connect this participle with what follows, making known at the new moons what shall come upon thee. The ”^ may then be partitive (some of the things etc.) or indicate the subject of the revelation (of i. e. concerning what shall come etc.). To the former Vitringa objects, that the astrologers would undertake of course to reveal not only some but all things still future. But Jarchi suggests, that the new moon could afford only partial information; and J. D. Michaelis, that this limited pretension would afford the astrologers a pretext and apology for frequent failures. But the other construction is now commonly preferred, except that Ewald gives to *i*?$*J the meaning whence, i. e. from what source or quarter these things are to come upon thee.
14. Behold they are like stubble, fire has burned them (the Babylonian astrologers). The construction given by Gesenius (stubble which the fire consumes) is inconsistent with the plural suffix. Behold brings their destruction into view as something present. It is on this account more natural, as well as more exact, to give the verbs a past or present form, as Ewald does, than to translate them in the future. He not only prophesies that they shall be burnt, but sees them burning. The comparison with stubble seems intended to suggest that they are worthless and combustible, whose end is to be burned. (Heb. 6: 8.) At the same time a contrast is designed, as Kimchi well observes, between the burning of stubble and the burning of wood, the former being more complete and rapid than the latter. —They cannot deliver themselves from the hand (i. e. the power) of the flame. Gesenius and most of the later writers translate cto their life; Hitzig and Ewald still more rigidly, their soul. But the reflexive sense themselves is not only favoured by the analogy of ch. 46: 2, but required by the context. There is at least much less significance and point in saying that they cannot save their lives, than in saying that they cannot even save themselves, much less their votaries and dependents.—The last clause contains a negative description of the fire mentioned in the first. Of this description there are two interpretations. Grotius, Clericus, Vitringa, Lowth, Gesenius, and Maurer, understand it to mean that the destruction of the fuel will be so complete that nothing will be left at which a man can sit and warm himself. But as this gratuitously gives to “px the sense there is not left, without the least authority from usage, Ewald and Knobel agree with J. D. Michaelis and others in explaining it to mean, (this fire) is not a coal (at which) to warm one’s self, a fire to sit before, but a devouring and consuming conflagration. The only difficulty in the way of this interpretation is a slight one, namely, that it takes nbns in the sense of a coal-fire and not a single coal. With either of these expositions of the whole clause may be reconciled a different interpretation of the word SBH^ proposed by Saadias and inde pendently of him by Cocceius. These writers give the word the sense which it invariably has in every other place where it occurs, viz. their bread. (See Job 30: 4. Prov. 30: 25. Ezek. 4:13. 12: 19. Hos. 9: 4.) The whole expression then means that it is not a common fire for baking bread, or, on the other supposition, that there are not coals enough left for that purpose. The phrase esnb nbra (coal of their bread) presents a harsh and unusual combination, rendered less so however by the use of both words in ch. 44: 19. This construction is approved by Rosenmuller: but the other modern writers seem to be agreed in making csnb the infinitive of nrn (ch. 44: 15, 16) with a preposition, analogous in form to t=D3n from “jsn (ch. 30: 18). One manuscript has s^nb, which is nearer to the usual analogy of this class of verbs, but embarrasses the syntax with a pleonastic suffix.— The general sense of sudden, rapid, and complete destruction, is not affected by these minor questions of grammatical analysis.
15. Thus are they to thee, i. e. such is their fate, you see what has become of them. The T|^ is not superfluous, as Gesenius asserts, although foreign from our idiom. Tt suggests the additional idea that the person addressed was interested in them and a witness of their ruin.— With respect to whom thou hast laboured. This may either mean with whom or for whom; or both may he included in the general idea that these had been the object and occasion of her labours.— Thy dealers (or traders) from thy youth. This is commonly regarded as explanatory of the foregoing clause. Thus the English Version, they with whom thou hast laboured, even thy merchants etc. It then becomes a question whether these are called traders in the literal and ordinary sense, or at least in that of national allies and negociators; or whether the epithet is given in contempt to the astrologers and wise men of the foregoing context, as trafficking or dealing in imposture. J. D. Michaelis supposes them to be described as travelling dealers, i. e. pedlers and hawkers, who removed from place to place lest their frauds should be discovered. He even compares them with the gipsy fortune tellers of our own day, but admits that the astrologers of Babylonia held a very different position in society. Against any application of the last clause to this order it may be objected that the preceding verse, of which this is a direct continuation, represents them as already utterly consumed. The true solution of the difficulty seems to be afforded by the masoretic interpunction of the sentence, which connects TI^ITO not with what precedes but with what follows. According to this arrangement we are not to read and so are thy dealers, or even thy dealers, but thy dealers from thy youth wander each his own way. We have then two classes introduced, and two distinct events predicted. As if he had said, thy astrologers etc. are utterly destroyed, and as for thy dealers, they wander home etc. widely different in fate, but both alike in this, that they leave thee defenceless in the hour of extremity. Thy traders may then be taken either in its strict sense as denoting foreign merchants, or in its wider sense as comprehending all, whether states or individuals, with whom she had intercourse, commercial or political. Ewald revives Houbigant’s interpretation of the word as meaning sorcerers, in order to sustain which by the Arabic analogy, he seems inclined to read TjT?r]^, without the least necessity or warrant.—These are described as thinking only of providing for their own security. (Compare ch. 13:14. 43: 14.) Each to his own quarter, side, direction,—substantially synonymous with lisa w-bs (Ezek. 1: 9, 12), and other phrases all meaning straight before him, without turning to the right hand or the left,—they wander (or have wandered), a term implying not only flight but confusion. The plural form agrees with the subject understood, and not with the distributive expression tt^x by which that subject is defined and qualified.— There is no one help ing thee, or still more strongly, saving thee, thou hast no saviour,—with particular reference to those just mentioned, who, instead of thinking upon her or bringing her assistance, would be wholly engrossed by a sense of their own danger and the effort to escape it. There is no need of supposing, with Hitzig, that the image of a great conflagration is still present to the writer’s mind, and that no one helps (or saves) thee means specifically no one quenches thee. The figurative dress would rather seem to have been laid aside, in order to express the naked truth more plainly.
