THIS chapter contains a description of the prevalent iniquities of Judah, and of the judgments which, in consequence of these, had been or were to be inflicted on the people. The form of the prophecy is peculiar, consisting of a parable and a commentary on it.
The prophet first delivers his whole message in a parabolic form, vs. 1— 7. He then explains and amplifies it at great length, vs. 8-30.
The parable sets forth the peculiar privileges, obligations, guilt, and doom of Israel, under the figure of a highly favoured vineyard which, instead of good fruit, brings forth only wild grapes, and is therefore given up to desolation, vs. 1-6. The application is expressly made by the Prophet himself, v. 7.
In the remainder of the chapter, he enumerates the sins which were included in the general expressions of v. 7, and describes their punishment. In doing this, he first gives a catalogue of sins with their appropriate punish ments annexed, vs. 8-24. He then describes the means used to inflict them, and the final issue, vs. 25-30.
The catalogue of sins and judgments comprehends two series of woes or denunciations. In the first, each sin is followed by its punishment, vs. 8— 17. In the second, the sins follow one another in uninterrupted succession, and the punishment is reserved until the close, vs. 18—24.
In the former series, the first woe is uttered against avaricious and ambitious grasping after lands and houses, to be punished by sterility and desolation, vs. 8-10. The second woe is uttered against drunkenness, untimely mirth, and disregard of providential warnings, appropriately punished by captivity, hunger, thirst, and general mortality, vs. 11-14. To these two woes are added a general declaration of their purpose and effect, to humble man and exalt God, and a repeated threatening of general desolation as a punishment of both the sins just mentioned, vs. 15-17.
The sins denounced in the second series of woes are presumptuous and incredulous defiance of God’s judgments, the deliberate confounding of moral distinctions, undue reliance upon human wisdom, and drunkenness considered as a vice of judges, and as causing the perversion of justice, vs. 18-23. To these he adds a general threatening of destruction as a necessary consequence of their forsaking God, v. 24.
In declaring the means used to effect this condign retribution, the Prophet sets before us two distinct stages or degrees of punishment. The first, which is briefly and figuratively represented as a violent and destructive stroke of God’s hand, is described as ineffectual, v. 25. To complete the work, another is provided, in the shape of an invading enemy, before whom, after a brief fluctuation, Israel disappears in total darkness, vs. 26-30.
In its general design and subject, this prophecy resembles those which go before it; but it differs remarkably from both in holding up to view exclusively the dark side of the picture, the guilt and doom of the ungodly Jews, without the cheering contrast of purgation and deliverance to be experienced from the same events by the true Israel, the Church of God. This omission, which of course must be supplied from other prophecies, is by Hitzig incorrectly represented as a reason for regarding this as the conclusion of the one preceding, to confirm which supposition he appeals to certain verbal coincidences, particularly that between v. 15 and ch. 2: 9, 17. But these, and the more general resemblance of the chapters, can only prove at most what must be true on any hypothesis, to wit, that the prophecies relate to the same subject and belong to the same period. A similar coincidence between v. 25 and ch.9: 11,16,20. 10: 4,hasled Ewald to interpolate the whole of that passage (from ch. 9: 5 to ch. 10: 4) between the twenty-fifth and twentysixth verses of this chapter; as if the same form of expression could not be employed by the same author upon different occasions, and as if such a treatment of the text did not open the door to boundless license of conjecture. With still less semblance of a reason, Hendewerk connects this chapter with the first nine verses of the seventh and the whole of the seventeenth, as making up one prophecy. The old opinion, still retained by Gesenius, Henderson, Umbreit, and Knobel, is that this chapter, if not an independent prophecy, is at least a distinct appendix to the one preceding, with which it is connected, not only in the way already mentioned, but also by the seem ing allusion in the first verse to ch. 3: 14, where the Church of God is called his vineyard, a comparison which reappears in other parts of Scripture, and is carried out in several of our Saviour’s parables.
This chapter, like the first, is applicable not to one event exclusively, but to a sequence of events which was repeated more than once, although its terms were never fully realized until the closing period of the Jewish his tory, after the true Messiah was rejected, when one ray of hope was quench ed after another, until all grew dark for ever in the skies of Israel.
1. The parable is given in vs. 1-6, and applied in v. 7. It is introduced in such a manner as to secure a favourable hearing from those whose conduct it condemns, and in some measure to conceal its drift until the application. The Prophet proposes to sing a song, i. e. to utter a rhythmical and figurative narrative, relating to a friend of his, his friend’s own song indeed about his vineyard. In the last clause he describes the situation of the vineyard, its favourable exposure and productive soil. I will sing, if you please (or let me sing, I pray you), of my friend (i. e. concerning him), my friend’s song of his vineyard (i. e. concerning it). My friend had a vine yard in a hill of great fertility (literally in a horn, a son of fatness, according to the oriental idiom which applies the terms of human kindred to relations of every kind.) — The common version, now will I sing, seems to take N3 as an adverb of time, whereas it is a particle of entreaty, used to soften the expression of a purpose, and to give a tone of mildness and cour tesy to the address. — Sing and song are used, as with us, in reference to poetry, without implying actual musical performance. — Calvin’s translation, (for my beloved, i. e. in his name, his person, his behalf) is at variance with the usage of the particle. Grotius’s (to my beloved) is inappropriate, as the friend is not addressed, and this is not a song of praise. Maurer’s (of my beloved, i. e. belonging to him, like irt a Psalm of David) is a form only used in titles or inscriptions. The V has doubtless the same sense before this word as before his vineyard. Knobel supposes song of my friend also to denote a song respecting him, because he is not introduced as speaking till v. 3. But for that very reason, it is first called a song concerning him, and then his own song. — The cognate words ‘‘TT and ^TO are referred by some to different subjects; but their identity is plain from the possession of the vineyard being ascribed to both. — The Vulgate and Luther give to TO its usual sense of uncle, and Cocceius applies it to the Holy Spirit, which is altogether arbitrary. It seems to be joined with W^ to vary the expression of the same idea, that of friend, the unusual terms being used not mystically but poetically. The Prophet must be understood as speaking of a human friend, until he explains himself. — Umbreit makes “pE govern the next phrase; on the projection (Vorsprung) of a fat place; but the latter is in that case too indefinite. — Clericus supposes an allusion to a horn of oil, Vitringa to the curved shape of the Holy Land; but most interpreters agree that horn is here used, as in various other languages, for the sharp peak of a mountain (e. g. Schreckhorn and Wetterhorn in Switzerland) or, as in Arabic, for a detached hill. — The preposition does not properly mean on but in, implying that the vineyard only occupied a part, and that this was not the summit, but the acclivity exposed to the sun, which is the best situation for a vine yard. (Apertos Bacchus amat colles. Virg. Georg. 2:
2. Not only was the vineyard favourably situated, but assiduously tilled, protected from intrusion, and provided with every thing that seemed to be needed to secure an abundant vintage. And he digged it up, and gathered out the stones thereof, and planted it with SoreJc, mentioned else where (Jer. 2: 21) as the choicest kind of vine, which either gave or owed its name to the valley of Sorek (Judg. 16. 4), and built a toiverin the midst of it, partly for protection from men and beasts, and partly for the pleasure and convenience of the owner, and also a wine-vat, to receive the juice from the wine-press immediately above, he hewed in it, i. e. in a rock (or hewed may be simply used for excavated in the ground, a common situation in hot countries for the lacus, reservoir, or wine-vat), and he waited for it, i. e. he allowed it time, to make-, produce, bear, bring forth, grapes, and it produced wild grapes.—Instead of he waited for it, Umbreit reads he hoped, Lowth, Barnes, and Henderson, he expected, and the authorized version, he looked, in the old English sense. But the first translation, which is that of the Septuagint (^eivi), is entitled to the preference, because it conveys the full sense of the Hebrew word without creating any difficulty in the subsequent application of the figure.—J. D. Michaelis, Eichhorn, and Rosenmuller take n^ma in the sense of aconite or nightshade; a plant which does not grow in Palestine. Most modern writers approve the version of Jerome, labrusca, the labrusca vitis of Pliny, and labrusca uva of Columella, an acrid and unwholesome grape, contrasted with the good grape by Sedulius (1: 29) precisely as the two are here contrasted by Isaiah: Labruscam placidis quid adhuc praeponitis uvis? For he digged it up and gathered out the stones thereof, the Septuagint has he hedged it and walled it, both which senses ‘may be reconciled with etymology, although rejected by the modern lexicographers. The question is of no exegetical importance, as the words in either case denote appropriate and necessary acts for the culture or protection of the vineyard.
3. Having described the advantageous situation, soil, and culture of the vineyard, and its failure to produce good fruit, he submits the case to the decision of his hearers. And now, not merely in a temporal but a logical sense, c this being the case,’ oh inhabitant of Jerusalem and man of Judah, the singular form adding greatly to the individuality and life of the expression, judge I pray you, pray decide or act as arbiters, between me and my vine yard.—To suppose, with Calvin and others, that the people are here called upon directly to condemn themselves because their guilt was so apparent, is to mar the beauty of the parable by a premature application of its figures. They are rather called upon to judge between a stranger and his vineyard, simply as such, unaware that they are thereby passing judgment on themselves. The meaning and design of the appeal are perfectly illustrated by that which Christ makes (Matt. 21: 40) in a parable analogous to this and founded on it. There as here the audience are called upon to judge in a case which they regard as foreign to their own, if not fictitious, and it is only after their decision that they are made to see its bearing on themselves. So too in Nathan’s parable to David (2 Sam. 12: 1), it was not till “ David’s anger was greatly kin- 5 died against the man,” i. e. the stranger of whom he understood the Prophet to be speaking, that “ Nathan said to David, Thou art the man.” A dis regard of these analogies impairs both the moral force and the poetical unity and beauty of the apologue. The same thing may be said of the attempt made by the Chaldee Paraphrast, Cocceius, Vitringa, and most recently by Umbreit, to put ^specific figurative sense on each part of the parable, the wall, the tower, the hedge, etc. which is not more reasonable here ‘than it would be in explaining Esop’s fables. The parable, as a whole, corresponds to its subject as a whole, but all the particulars included in the one are not separately intended to denote particulars included in the other. A lion may be a striking emblem of a hero; but it does not follow that the mane, claws, etc. of the beast must all be significant of something in the man. Nay, they cannot even be supposed to be so, without sensibly detracting from the force and beauty of the image as a whole.
4. This Verse shows that the parable is not yet complete, and that its application would be premature. Having called upon the Jews to act as umpires, he now submits a specific question for their arbitration. What to do more (i. e. what more is there to be done) to my vineyard and I have not (or in the English idiom, that I have not) done in it (not only to or for but in it, with reference to the place as well as the object of the action) 1 Why did I wait for it to bear grapes and it Lore wild grapes 1—Calvin and Gesenius supply was instead of is in the first clause, what was there to do more, i. e. what more was there to be done, or was I bound to do? But this, though grammatically unexceptionable, does not agree so well with the connexion between this verse and the next, as a question and answer. Still less exact is the English Version (followed by Lowth, Barnes, and Hender son), what more could have been donel The question whether God had done all that he could for the Jews, when the Scriptures were still incomplete and Christ had not yet come, however easy of solution, is a question here irrelevant, because it has relation not to something in the text but to something supplied by the interpreter, and that not only without necessity but in violation of the context; for the next verse is not an answer to the question what God could have done but what he shall or will do. The most simple, exact, and satisfactory translation of this first clause is that given by Cocceius (quid faciendum amplius vinae meae) and Ewald (was ist noch meinem Weinberge zu thun?)—In the last clause Calvin under stands the owner of the vineyard to express surprise at his own unreasonable expectations. Why did I expect it (i. e. how could I expect it) to bear grapes 1 This construction not only raises a new difficulty.in the application of the words to God, but is inconsistent with the context, the whole drift of which is to show that the expectation was a reasonable one. The interrogation really belongs to the second member only, the first being merely introductory, or rather to the whole clause as a complex sentence. < Why, when I waited for it to bear grapes, did it bear wild grapes?’ As other examples of the same construction, Knobel refers to ch. 12: 1. 50: 2, an to Job 2: 10.4:2.3: 11.
5. He now proceeds to answer his own question, in a tone of pun gent irony, almost amounting to a sarcasm. The reply which might naturally have been looked for was a statement of some new care, some neglected precaution, some untried mode of culture; but instead of this he threatens to destroy the vineyard, as the only expedient remaining. The rhetorical effect of this sudden turn in the discourse is heightened by the very form of the last clause, in which the simple future, as the natural expression of a purpose, is exchanged for the infinitive, denoting the bare action without specification of person, time, or number. And now (since you cannot tell) I will let you know if you please (or let me tell you) what I am doing to my vineyard (i. e. according to the idiomatic use of the participle, what I ®m about to do, suggesting the idea of a proximate futurity), remove its hedge find it shall become a pasture (literally, a consuming, but with special reference to cattle), break down its wall, and it shall become a trampling-place (i. e. it shall be overrun and trampled down).—Remove and break are not imperatives but infinitives, equivalent in meaning to I will remove and break, but more concise and rapid in expression. Cocceius and Vitringa suppose an ellipsis of the finite verb after the infinitive, c removing I will remove,’ 4 breaking down I will break down.’ This construction, in its full form, is •extremely common; but against the supposition of its ever being elliptically used, there is this objection, that the repetition is designed to be emphatic, an effect which is entirely destroyed by the omission. Knobel supposes that the thorn hedge and stone wall, which are separately mentioned else where, are here put together to denote a more than ordinary care bestowed on the ideal vineyard. The more common opinion is that both were actually used in the same case with a view to different kinds of depredation.—&^a is a noun of place formed in the usual manner (Ges. Heb. Gr. <§> 83. 14) from the verb G^, which occurs in ch. 1: 12*—On the sense become (instead of be for) vide supra, ch. 1: 14, 21, 22, 31.
6. To the threatening of exposure he now adds that of desolation arising from neglect of culture, while the last clause contains a beautiful though almost imperceptible transition from the apologue to the reality. By adding to the other threats, which any human vine-dresser might have reasonably uttered, one which only God could execute, the parable at one stroke is brought to a conclusion, and the mind prepared for the ensuing application. And I place it (render it) a desolation. It shall not be pruned and it shall not be dressed, and there shall come up thorns and briers. And I will lay my commands upon the clouds from raining rain upon it, i. e. that rain no rain upon it. The addition of the noun rain is emphatic and equivalent to any rain at all.—The English Version lay waste is perhaps too strong for the original expression, which rather signifies the letting it run to waste by mere exposure and neglect.*—The older versions take “ns^ in the sense of digging (Sept. Vulg. Luther, Calv.), but the latest writers prefer that of ‘dressing,- arranging, putting in order—Gesenius and Ewald follow Cocceius in referring fibs to the vineyard as its subject; it shall come up thorns and briers, as the eye is said to run down water (Lam. 3: 48), and a land to flow milk and honey (Exod. 3:8). The construction, though undoubtedly good Hebrew, is not so obvious as the old and common one. To command from or away from is to deter from any act by a command, in other words to forbid or to command not to do the thing in question-. In this sense only can the preposition from be said to have a negative meaning.
7. The startling menace at the close of the sixth verse would naturally prompt the question, Who is this that assumes power over clouds and rain, and what is the vineyard which he thus denounces? To this tacit question we have here the answer. As if he had said, do not wonder that the owner of the vineyard should thus speak, for the vine yard of Jehovah of Hosts is the House of Israel, the church, consideredas a whole, and the man of Judah is the plant of his pleasures, or his favourite plant. And he waited for judgment, practical justice, as in <ch. 1: 17, and behold bloodshed, for righteousness and behold a cry, either outcry and disturbance, or more specifically the cry of the oppressed, which last is more agreeable to usage, and at the same time more poetical and graphic.—The ^3 at the beginning has been variously rendered but (Lu. Ges. Hendew. Umbr.), to wit (Hitz.), certainly (Calvin), etc.-‘ But the true connexion of the verse with that before it not only admits but requires the strict sense, for, because, as given in the ancient versions, and retained by Cocceius, Ewald, and Knobel.—J. D. Michaelis and all the later Germans follow Pagninus and Montanus in translating r^3 plantation. But the word is unambiguously used in that sense nowhere else, and it does not agree well with the singular term man. It is true that plant and man may be put for a collection of plants and men, but this should not affect the strict translation of the sentence.—The paronomasia or designed correspondence in the form and sound of the parallel expressions in the last clause has been copied by Augusti, Gesenius, Hitzig, Ewald, and Knobel. But, as Hendewerk has well observed, such imitations can even approximate to the ‘form of the original, only by departing more or less from the strict sense of particular expressions, a loss which can hardly be considered as made good by the mere assonance of such combinations as Gerechllgkeit and Schlechtigkeit, Begluckung and Bedruckung, Milde and Unbilde.
8. Here begins a detailed specification of the sins included in die general expressions of v. 7. We have first two woes pronounced against as many sins, each followed by a threatening of appropriate punishment, and a general threatening which applies to both, vs. 8-17. The first sin thus denounced is that of ambitious and avaricious grasping after’property, not merely in opposition to the peculiar institutions of the law, but to the fundamental principles of morals, connected as it always is with a neglect of char itable duties and a willingness to sacrifice the good of others. The verse before us may be understood, however, as descriptive rather of the tendency and aim of this ambitious grasping, than of its actual effects. Woo, to the joiners of house with house, or those making house touch house, field to field they bring together., literally, cause them to approach, even to a failure (or defect) of place, i. e. until there is no room left, and ye, by a sudden apostrophe addressing those of whom he had been speaking, are made (or left) to dwell by yourselves in the midst of the land, owning all from the centre to the circumference, or simply within its bounds, within it. The.translation earth is equally agreeable to usage, and expresses still more strongly the extent of their desires; but land is more natural and preferred by almost all interpreters. Ewald regards hi’n as a simple exclamation (O die Haus reihen an Haus!) But this translation is inadequate, as an ex pression of denunciation is required by the context.
9. The inordinate desire of lands and houses shall be punished with the loss of them, vs. 9, 10. And first, he threatens that the valuable houses which they coveted, and gained by fraud or violence, shall one day be left empty, an event implying the death, captivity, or degradation of their own ers. In my ears Jehovah of Hosts is saying, as if his voice were still ring ing in the Prophet’s ears, of a truth (literally, if not, being part of an old formula of swearing, ‘ may iube so and so if,’ etc; so that the negative form conveys the strongest affirmation, surely, certainly) many houses shall become a desolation, great and good, for want of an inhabitant.—The Septuagint and Vulgate, followed by Luther, Calvin and J. D. Michaelis, make in my ears the words of God himself, as if he had said c these things are in my ears,’ or ’ it (the cry, v. 7) is in my ears, saith Jehovah of Hosts.’ But most modern writers follow the Targum and Peshito in construing this clause according to the analogy of ch. 22: 14 (‘ in my ears it was revealed by Jehovah of Hosts,’ or ’ Jehovah of Hosts revealed himself.’)—The common version, shall be desolate, does not convey the whole idea, which is that of be-
coming, being changed into (vide supra, v. 6), and is so rendered in most ver sions.—The sense usually given to d^aio is the specific one of fair or beautiful (Henderson. fine; Barnes, splendid). But Cocceius and Vitringa take it more correctly in the general sense of good, including the ideas of profit and convenience, as well as that of elegance or beauty.—By most interpreters yxa in the last clause is regarded as a synonyme or at most as an intensive form of T^, ’ wholly without inhabitant.’ But the causative meaning, (for the want off ‘ from the absence of,’ “px being properly a noun, affords a better sense here, as explaining ‘how or why the houses should be desolate, and may be justified by the analogy of Jer. 19: 11. (J. D. Michaelis, ‘because there will be no one to inhabit them.) Clericus, Vitringa and Hendewerk explain it to mean so that there shall not be, but without authority from usage.—Henderson’s version of the foregoing words, the numerous houses, the large and fine ones, and that of Gesenius from which it is derived, seem to lay too much stress upon the adjectives.—On the form if not, compare ch. 14: 24. Deut. 1: 35. Ps. 131: 2.
10. As the sin related both to lands and houses, so both are mentioned in denouncing punishment. The desolation of the houses was in fact to arise from the unproductiveness of the lands. Ruinous failure of crops, and a near approach to absolute sterility are threatened as a condign punish ment of those who added field to field and house to house. The meaning of this verse depends not on the absolute value of the measures •mentioned, but on their proportions. The last clause threatens that the seed sown, instead of being multiplied, should be reduced nine-tenths; and a similar idea is no doubt expressed by the analogous terms of the preceding clause. For ten acres (literally yokes, like the Latin jugerum from jugum) of vineyard shall make (produce) one bath, a liquid measure here put for a very small quantity of wine to be yielded by so large a quantity of land, and the seed of a homer, i. e. seed to the amount of a homer, or in our idiom, a homer of seed, shall produce an ephah, a dry measure equal to the liquid bath, and constituting one tenth of a homer, as we learn from Ezek. 45: 11 -14. The English Version, followed by Lowth, translates 13 yea, while Clericus and Gesenius omit it altogether. but the particle is necessary, in its usual sense, to connect this verse with the prediction in v. 9, of which it gives the ground or reason.
11. The second woe is uttered against drunkenness and heartless dissipation, with its usual accompaniment of inattention to God’s providential dealings, and is connected with captivity, hunger, thirst, general mortality, as its appropriate punishment, vs. 11-14. The description of the sin is contained in vs. 11, 12, and first that of drunkenness, considered not as an occasional excess, but as a daily business, diligently prosecuted with a devotion such as would ensure success in any laudable or lawful occupation. Woe to those rising early in the morning to pursue strong drink (lit erally, strong drink they pursue), delaying in the twilight (until) wine in flames them.—That t)ir>a does not here mean the morning twilight, but as usual the dusk of evening (Prov. 7: 9), is plain from the preposition in prefixed. The idea of continuing till night (Vulg. Calv. Eng. Vs.) is rather implied than expressed. The allusion is not so much to the disgracefulness of drinking in the morning (Knobel, Henderson) as to.their spending day and night in drinking, rising early and sitting up late. Before wine in the last clause the older writers supply and (Pesh. J. D. Mich.), while ‘(Calv. Vitr.), or so that (Vulg. Lu. Cocc. Low. Ros.). Gesenius avoids this by a paraphrase (‘ sit late at night by wine inflamed’), and Ewald treats the participles in both clauses as adverbial expressions used to qualify the finite verb (‘ they who early in the morning run after strong drink, late in the evening are inflamed by wine’). The precise construction of the Hebrew may be thus retained—’ those who, rising early in the morning, pursue strong drink; those whom, delaying in the evening, wine inflames.’ The same application of o-^nxE occurs in the parallel passage, Prov. 23: 29-32. Strong drink differs from wine only by including all intoxicating liquors, and is here used simply as a parallel expression.—The waste of time here censured is professed and gloried in by the convivial’ poets of heathen antiquity. Thus Horace says of himself, Est qui nee veteris pocula Massici, Nee partem solido clemere de die, Spernit.
The nocturnal part of the prophetic picture is still more exactly copied by Propertius, Sic noctem patera, sic ducam carmine, donee Injiciat radios in mea vina dies. Illustrative parallels from modern poetry are needless though abundant.
12. This verse completes the picture begun in v. 11, by adding riot ous mirth to drunkenness. To express this idea, music is joined with wine as the source of their social enjoyment, but the last clause shows that it is not mere gayety, nor even the excess of it, that is here intended to be prominently set forth, but the folly and wickedness of merriment at certain times and under certain circumstances, especially amidst impending judgments. The general idea of music is expressed by naming several instruments be longing to the three great classes of stringed, wind, and pulsatile. The precise form and use of each cannot be ascertained, and is of no importance to the meaning of the sentence. And the harp and the viol, the tabret 72
(tambourine or small drum) and the pipe (or flute), and wine (compose) their feasts; and the work of Jehovah they will not look at (or regard), and the operation of his hands they have not seen, and do not see.—The Targum supplies a preposition before the first nouns and makes feasts the subject of the sentence: (With harp and viol, tabret and pipe, and wine, are their feasts.’ The Septuagint and Peshito, c with harp, etc., they drink their wine.’ The Vulgate supplies the preposition before feasts, and makes the other nouns the subject—( Harp and viol, &c., are in your feasts.’ Gesenius gives the same sense, but supposes Dn^tjttSa to be used adverbially as in Arabic. Cocceius, Ewald, Maurer, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Henderson, make it the nominative after the substantive verb understood. c *Harp and viol, tabret and pipe, and wine, are their feasts,’ in these consist their social enter tainments. Umbreit and Knobel separate the last two words from what precedes and read, *’ there is harp and viol, tabret and pipe, and wine is their drink.’ The general sense is not at all affected by these questions of construction. According to Ewald (Heb. Gr. <§> 379), with whom Hitzig and Umbreit agree, BrpttdE is not a plural, but the form which ftb derivatives take, even in the singular, before certain suffixes. The work of Jehovah here alluded to is not that of creation (Umbreit) nor the law (Abarbenel) nor the design and use of providential favours (Calvin), but his dealings with the people in the way of judgment. Compare ch. 10: 12. 22: 11. 28: 21. Hab.’l: 5. 3:2. Ps. 64: 9, and especially Ps. 28: 5, from which the ex pressions here used seem to be taken.
13. Here again the sin is directly followed by its condign punishment, drunkenness and disregard of providential warnings by captivity, hunger, thirst, and general mortality, vs. 13, 14. But instead of the language of direct prediction (as in vs. 9, 10) the Prophet here employs that of description. Therefore (for the reasons given in the two preceding verses) my people has gone into exile (or captivity) for want of knowledge (a wilful ignorance of God’s providential work and operation), and their glory (lite rally his, referring to the singular noun people) are men of hunger (i. e. famished), and their multitude dry (parched) with thirst. J. D. Michaelis under stands captivity as a figurative term for misery, as in Job 42: 10. Ps. 14: 7. But the context seems to require the literal interpretation.—Luther, Gesenius, and Hendewerk take r&a as a future, which is not to be assumed without necessity. Most recent writers evade the difficulty by rendering it in the present tense. The only natural construction is the old one (Sept. Vulg. Calv. Vitr. Barnes) which gives the preterite its proper meaning, and either supposes the future to be here, as often elsewhere, spoken of as if already past (J. H. Michaelis), or understands the verse as referring to judgments which had been already suffered, not at at one time merely, but on various occasions, as if he had said ’ this is the true cause of the captivity, the hunger and the thirst, to which Israel has so often been subjected.’ The allusion cannot be to the deportation of the ten tribes, who are never called God’s people.—Because he knoweth not, they know not, and 1 knew not, are phrases sometimes used where we say unawares or suddenly (e. g. Ps. 35: 8. Sol. Song 6: 12. Job 9:5), Luther so understands r.3H”^aa here, in which he is followed by J. D. Mich. Ros. Ges. Ew. Hendew. Renders. Hitz. Umbr. But as this phrase is not so used elsewhere, and in Hos. 4: 6 means for want of knowledge, as the cause of ruin, {his exact and ancient version is correctly, retained by Lowth, DeWette, Maurer and Knobel.—By I’lias and ttfan some understand the same class of persons, viz. the rich and noble (Vitr. Ges. Ew.). Others suppose an antithesis between the nobility and the populace (Luther, Lowth, Umbreit). Either of these verbal explanations is consistent with the import of the threatening as explained already; but the most probable interpretation seems to be that of Knobel, who supposes the multitude or mass of the inhabitants, without regard to rank, to be called the flower or glory of the country, as Goldsmith calls the peasantry “ a nation’s pride.” For ^na men, J. D. Michaelis and Lowth read ^ns dead, on the authority of the Septuagint, Targum, Peshito, and Luther. Hitzig and Ewald read htE or fita exhausted, after the analogy of Deut. 32: 24. But the common reading yields a perfectly good sense, not however that of nobles in hunger (Vitr. nobiles fame) but simply that of hungry men, or starvelings as Henderson expresses it.
14. As the effect of the preceding judgments, the Prophet now describes a general mortality, under the figure of the grave, as a ravenous monster, gaping to devour the thoughtless revellers. Here, as in v. 13, he seems to be speaking of events already past. Therefore (because famine and captivity have thus prevailed) the grave has enlarged herself and opened her mouth without measure, and down goes her pomp and her noise and her crowd and he that rejoices in her.—It is equally correct, although not perhaps so natural, to regard k^-b? as a correlative of “jab in v. 13, both relating to the sins described in v. 12, as the occasion of the strokes in question.—The noun Vixftj. is derived by Gesenius from a verb bsttj, which he supposes to have been synonymous with ^>tB to be hollow. Hence the noun would mean an excavation and in particular a grave, which same sense is deduced by the older writers from ^>s<d to ask or crave (Prov. 30: 15, 16. Hab. 2:5). The sense of the term here corresponds almost exactly to the poetical use of grave in English, as denoting one great receptacle, to which the graves of individuals may be conceived as inlets. It is thus that we speak of a voice from the grave, without referring to the burialplace of any individual. The German Holle (originally Hohle, hollow) and the old English Hell, correspond almost exactly to the Hebrew word; but the idea of a place of torment, which is included in their present meaning, is derived from the peculiar use of adqs (the nearest Greek equivalent) in the book of Revelation, and belongs to the Hebrew word only by implication and in certain connexions. It seems to be a needless violation of good taste to introduce the Greek word Hades (Lowth), especially if treated as a feminine noun (Barnes). For additional remarks upon the usage of the Hebrew word, see ch. 14: 9.—As the same phrase here used is applied by Habakkuk (2: 5) to Nebuchadnezzar, “ who enlarged his desire as the grave, and was like death, and could not be satisfied,” most of the modern writers take aSBS here in the sense of appetite, either strictly (Ewald) or as a figure for the craving maw of a devouring monster (Gesenius). Grotius takes 1’iafia as a reflexive pronoun, for which there is no distinct form in Hebrew, and by the grave’s enlarging itself understands a poetical description of an extraordinary number of dead bodies.—The English Version, following the Vulgate, connects w with MS, which is forbidden by the accents and by the usa.ge of the verb and preposition.—As the suffix in wees must refer to bixsj, the simplest construction is that of Hitzig, who refers the other pronouns to the same antecedent, her pomp (i. e. the grave’s), her crowd, her noise, so called because they were to have an end in her, as men doomed to die are called men of death, 2 Sam. 19: 29. By &a tbs he understands the man exulting over her, laughing at the grave and setting death at defiance (compare ch. 28: 15). This construction is approved by Hendewerk, but rejected by the other recent interpreters for the old one, which refers the pronouns to Jerusalem or Zion understood.—The words rendered pomp, crowd, and noise, are as variously explained as those in v. 13; but all agree that they refer to the voluptuous revellers described in v. 12.
15. To the description of the punishment the Prophet now adds that of its design and ultimate effect, to wit, the humiliation of man and the exaltation of God, vs. 15, 16. The former is here foretold in terms almost identical with those of ch. 2: 9. And man is brought low and man is cast down and the eyes of the lofty (or haughty) are cast down.—Most of the older writers render, all the verbs of this verse in the future, but Junius, Cocceius, and the moderns in the present. The Vav conversive probably denotes nothing more than the dependence of the first two verbs on those of the preceding verse, as expressive of a subsequent and consequent event. If so, the sense, though not the form, of the original is well expressed by Luther, so that every man is humbled, &tc. That the verse at least includes a reference to the future, is clear from the future form of the third verb; and that this is not in contrast with the past time of the first clause, may be inferred from the resumption of the latter form in v. 16. In a case so dubious, the prese^,, form may be preferred, as really including both the others, or at least consistent with them.—On the use of tth» and D’isj, see ch. 2: 9. Lu ther, who there supposes an antithesis between the terms, here translates them both by every man. The only difference between the two interpretations, with respect to the import of the Prophet’s declaration, is that in the one case he distinctly mentions two great classes as the subjects of humiliation, while in the other he confounds them all together. In either case the sense is that the pride of man shall be brought low. “ Let a man be ever so high, death will bring him low; ever so mean, death will bring him lower.” (Matthew Henry.)
16. The same events which humble man exalt God, not by contrast merely, but by the positive exhibition of his attributes. And Jehovah of Hosts is exalted in judgment (in the exercise of justice), and the Mighty, the Holy One, is sanctified (shown to be a Holy God) in righteousness.—Most of the earlier and later writers follow the Vulgate in rendering tiiYi^n bxin simply the Holy God. But the accentuation seems to indicate a more emphatic sense. The English version follows Calvin, and reads God who is holy. Lowth follows Luther, God the Holy One. But as bx is itself -a significant title, it seems best to regard the two epithets as summing up the natural and moral perfections of the Deity. So Vitringa (Deus ille fortis, sanctus ille) and Junius (Deus sanctus fortissimus).—Hitzig gives isipa a reflexive meaning (sanctifies himself) which, although admissible, is needless and not favoured by the parallelism.—In judgment and in righteousness are used precisely in the same sense, ch. 1: 27. With respect to the tense of the verbs, see the foregoing verse.
17. Having paused, as it were, to show the ultimate effect of these judgments, he now completes the description of the judgments themselves, by predicting the conversion of the lands possessed by the ungodly Jews into a vast pasture-ground, occupied only by the flocks of wandering shepherds from the neighbouring deserts. And lambs shall feed as (in) their pasture, and the wastes of the fat ones shall sojourners (temporary occupants) devour. The explanation of this verse as a promise, that the lambs or righteous should succeed to the possessions of the fat ones or wealthy sinners (Targ. Jar. Kim. Calv. Jun. Cocc. Vitr.) is scarcely consistent with the context, which contains an unbroken series of threatenings. The modern interpreters, who follow Aben Ezra in making this a threatening likewise, apply it either figuratively to the subjection of the Holy Land to the Gentiles (Gill) or the entrance of the poor on the possessions of the rich (Hendewerk), or literally to the desolation of the land itself (J. D. Mich. Lowth, &c.).—Gesenius refers the last clause to tillage, and supposes it to mean that strangers shall reap the crops of the forsaken lands; but the common interpretation is more natural, which makes both clauses have respect to pasturage.—Most writers make ta^a a synonyme of n^a strangers; but Cocceius treats it as an adjective agreeing with o^s, ’ and strange lambs shall devour/ &c. Hitzig construes it still more strictly as a participle, ‘ and devour wandering the wastes,’ &c. But the verb should then be taken in its usual sense of sojourning, residing for a time, in reference either to the shepherds or their sheep.—The Vulgate explains D^n^ nis^n to mean fat wastes, i. e. deserts become fertile (deserta in ubertatem versa); the French version, deserts where the flocks, grew fat; Clericus, still more strangely, the flocks themselves which fed in the desert, and should therefore be devoured by strangers, while the lambs were led as usual to pasture by their Babylonian captors. J. D. Michaelis takes rvia’nn in the sense of ruins, here put for that which grows among them; but the word no doubt means waste fields, as in Jer. 25: 11. Ezek. 25: 13. Hitzig supposes n^n^ to denote fat sheep or rams, as in the only other place where it occurs (Ps. 66: 15); but most interpreters regard it as a figure for the rich and prosperous, like y^-rj^ Ps. 22: 30 (compare tarv^aaia Ps. 78: 31).—The phrase cn^s has been variously explained to mean as it was said to them (Targ.), juxta ductum suum i. e. without restraint (J. H. Mich. Lowth), according to their order i. e. their usual order (Vulg.), as they are driven (Aben Ezra, J. D. Mich.). But the modern interpreters take 15*1 here and Micah 2:. 12 in the sense of pasture.—The conjectural emendation of the text by changing fi^a into di’-o (Cappellus, Bauer) or D^ns (Durell, Seeker, Lowth, Ewald) is of course superfluous.
18. The series of woes is now resumed and continued without any interruption, vs. 18-23. Even the description of the punishment, instead of being added directly to that of the sin, as in vs. 9 and 13, is postponed until the catalogue of sins is closed, and then subjoined in a general form, v. 24. This verse contains the third woe, having reference to presumptuous sinners who defy God’s judgments. They are here represented not as drawn away by sin (James 1: 14), but as laboriously drawing it to them by soliciting temptation, drawing it out by obstinate persistency in evil and contempt of divine threatenings. Woe to the drawers of, iniquity (those drawing, those who draw it) with cords of vanity, and sin (a parallel expression to iniquity) as (or as with) a cart-rope, i. e. a strong rope, implying difficulty and exertion.—The interpretation which supposes iniquity and sin to mean calamity and punishment (Menochius, Gesenius, Ewald, Hendewerk, Henderson), although it seems to make the sentence clearer, impairs its strength, and takes the words in an unusual and doubtful sense. Knobel objects that men cannot be said to draw sin with cords of sin. But even this figure is perfectly consistent both with reason and experience. Or vanity may be taken in the sense of falsehood or sophistical reasoning by which men persuade themselves to sin (Calv. Vitr. Cler.). The Targum, followed by Jarchi, supposes an antithesis between the beginnings of sin and its later stages, slight cords and cart-ropes. But this confounds the sin itself with the instrument by which they draw it; and the same objection lies against the Syriac and Vulgate versions, which make drawing out, protract ing, the primary idea, and also against Houbigant’s and Lowth’s interpretation, which supposes an allusion to the process of rope-making. Luther’s idea that the verse relates to combination among wicked men, ’ who bind themselves together’ to do mischief, is at variance with the usage of the Hebrew verb. — The true interpretation of the verse, which supposes the act described to be that of laboriously drawing sin to one’s self, perhaps with the accessory idea of drawing it out by perseverance^is substantially given by Kimchi, Vitringa, J. D. Michaelis, Hitzig, Maurer, and Umbreit. — The various readings, n-.asa for m23?a (Bib. Soncin., 14 MSS.), i^arc for ibana (1 MS., Sept. Aq. Sym. Theod.), and r&is for rto (Olshausen, Observ. Crit. p. 8., Henderson ad loc.), are all unnecessary and inferior to the common text.
19. The degree of their presumption and depravity is now evinced by a citation of their language with respect to God’s threatened judgments, an ironical expression of impatience to behold them, and an implied refusal to believe without experience. The sentence is continued from the verse preceding, and further describes the sinners there denounced, as the ones saying (those who say), let him speed, let him hasten his work (his providential work, as in v. 12), that we may see, and let the counsel (providential plan or purpose) of the Holy One of Israel (which, in the mouth of these blasphemers, seems to be a taunting irony) draw nigh and come, and we will know (i. e. according to the Hebrew idiom and the parallel expression) that we may know what it is, or that it is a real purpose, and that he is able to accomplish it. (Compare Jer. 17: 15. Amos 5: 18. 6: 13. Isai. 30: 10, 11. 28: 15. 2 Peter 3: 4.) — The intransitive construction of the first clause, c let him speed, let his work make haste ‘ (Hitzig, Ewald, Umbreit), may be justified by usage, and makes the clauses more exactly parallel; but the other is preferred, by almost all interpreters, ancient and modern. — Henderson explains this verse as “ the only construction which could be put upon the conduct of the wicked Jews;” but the reference seems to be to actual expression of the wish in words, and not in action merely. — For the form JiKiaia, see Gesenius, Heb. Gr. § 48. 3.
20. The fourth woe is against those who subvert moral distinctions and confound good and evil, an idea expressed first in literal terms and then by two obvious and intelligible figures. Woe unto the (persons) saying (those who say) to evil good and to good evil, (who address them by these titles or call them so), putting darkness for light and light for darkness> putting litter for sweet and sweet for bitter. These are here combined, not merely as natural opposites, but also as common figures for truth and falsehood, right and wrong. See ch. 2: 5. Prov. 2: 13. EC. 2: 13. James 3: 11. A kindred figure is employed by Juvenal (qui nigrum in Candida vertunt. Sat. 3:3). Gesenius and Hitzig apply this verse particularly to unrighteous judges, who are mentioned in v. 23; but a more general sense is here required by the context.
21. Here, as in the foregoing verse, one sin follows another without any intervening description of punishment. This arrangement may imply a very intimate connection between the sins thus brought into juxtaposition. As presumptuous sin, such as vs. 18, 19 describe, implies a perversion of the moral sense, such as v. 20 describes, so the latter may be said to presuppose an undue reliance upon human reason, which is elsewhere contrasted with the fear of God (Prov. 3:7), and is indeed incompatible with it. Woe unto the wise in their eyes (i. e. their own eyes, which cannot be otherwise ex pressed in Hebrew) and before their own faces (in their own sight or estimation) prudent, intelligent, a synonyme of wise. The sin reproved, as Calvin well observes, is not mere frivolous self-conceit, but that delusive estimate of human wisdom (fallax sapientiae spectrum) which may coexist with modesty of manners and a high degree of real intellectual merit, but which must be abjured, not only on account of its effects, but also as involving the worst form of pride.
22. The sixth woe, like the second, is directed against drunkards, but with special reference to drunken judges, vs. 22, 23. The tone of this verse is sarcastic, from its using terms which commonly express not only strength but courage and heroic spirit, in application to exploits of drunken ness. There may indeed be a particular allusion to a species of fool-hardi ness and brutal ambition not uncommon in our own times, leading men to show the vigour of their frames by mad excess, and to seek eminence in this way no less eagerly than superior spirits seek true glory. Of such it may indeed be said, their god is their belly and they glory in their shame. Woe to the mighty men or heroes, (who are heroes only) to drink wine, and men of strength to mingle strong drink, i. e. according to the usual interpretation, to mix wine with spices, thereby making it more stimulating and exciting, a practice spoken of by Pliny and other ancient writers. (See also Sol. Song 8: 2.) Hitzig (with whom Hendewerk agrees on this point) denies that this was an oriental usage, and understands the Prophet as referring to the mixture of wine with water. But see Gesenius’s Thesaurus, p. 808. In either case the mixing is here mentioned only as a customary act in the offering or drinking of liquors, just as making tea might be mentioned as a common act of modern hospitality, whatever part of the preparatory process the phrase may properly denote.
23. The absence of the interjection shows that this is a continuation of the woe begun in the preceding verse, and thus explains the Prophet’s recurrence to a sin which he had denounced already (vs. 11, 12) as productive of general inconsideration, but which he now describes as leading to injustice, and therefore as a vice peculiarly disgraceful in a magistrate. The effect here ascribed to drunkenness is not merely that of incapacitating judges for the discharge of their official functions, but that of tempting them to make a trade of justice, with a view to the indulgence of this appetite. Justifying (i. e. acquitting, clearing, a forensic term) the guilty (not simply the wicked in a general sense, but the wrong-doer in a judicial sense) for the sake (literally as the result) of a bribe, and the righteousness of the righteous (i. e. the right of the innocent or injured party, or his character as such) they will take from him (i.e. they do and will do so still). The transition from the plural to the singular in this clause, and from the participle to the future, are familiar idioms of Hebrew syntax. The pronoun at the end may be understood either collectively or distributively, from each of them. (See Gesen. Heb. Gr. § 143. 4.)
24. To the series of sins enumerated in the six preceding verses there is now added a general description of their punishment. In the first clause, the Prophet represents the divine visitation, with its sudden, rapid, irresistible effect, by the familiar figure of chaff and dry grass sinking in the flames. In the second clause he ‘passes from simile to metaphor, and speaks of the people as a tree whose root is rotten and its growth above ground pulverized. In the third, he drops both figures, and in literal expressions summarily states the cause of their destruction. Therefore (because of the abounding of these sins) as a tongue of fire (i. e. a flame, so called from its shape and motion, Acts 2: 3. 1 Kings 18: 38) devours chaff (or stubble). and as ignited grass falls away, their root shall be as rottenness, and their blossom as fine dust shall go up (i. e. be taken up and scattered by the wind). For they have rejected the law of Jehovah of Hosts, and the word (the revealed, will) of the Holy one of Israel they have treated with con tempt.—Montanus explains n£rn as a transitive verb (glumam debilitat), and the English Version (followed by Lowth and Augusti) goes still further by giving it the sense of consuming, which it never has. Calvin, followed by Vitringa, makes it passive and. renders nsnb as an ablative (a flamma dissolvitur). Gesenius, in his version, gives the verb its usual intransitive or neuter sense, but supplies a preposition before the noun, or takes it as a noun of place (in der Flamme zusammensinkt). In his Lexicon, however, he adopts the construction first proposed by Cocceius, which supposes the two words to be in regimen, and to mean literally grass of flame i. e. flaming or ignited grass.—J. D. Michaelis endeavours to identify the figures of the first and second clause by reading ashes instead of rottenness; but such transitions are too common to excite surprise.—The Septuagint renders trig av&o*, the Vulgate germen, and others variously bud, blossom, flower, etc. It seems to be intended to express whatever could here be put in antithesis to root, as in the proverbial phrase root and branch, denoting the whole tree, above ground and below.—For the true sense of the last verb in this verse, see ch. 1: 4. Its use in this connexion is a strong proof that it cannot mean provoke, although the Seventy so translate it even here.—The collocation of the subject and the object in the first clause is unusual. See Ewald’s Heb. Gr. § 555. For the syntax of the infinitive and future in the same clause, see Gesen. § 129. Rem. 2.
25. Having declared in the foregoing verse what should be, he re calls to mind what has already been. As if he had said, God will visit you for these things; nay, he has done so already, but without reclaiming you or satisfying his own justice, for which purpose further strokes are still re quired. The previous inflictions here referred to are described as a stroke from Jehovah’s outstretched hand, so violent as to shake the mountains, and so destructive as to fill the streets with corpses.—Therefore (referring to the last clause of v. 24) the anger of Jehovah has burned against his people (literally in them i. e. in the very midst of them as a consuming fire), and he stretched forth his hand against them (literally him, referring to the singular noun people), and smote them, and the mountains trembled, and their carcass put collectively for corpses) was like sweeping (refuse, filth) in the midst of the streets. In all this (i. e. even after all this, or notwithstanding all this) his anger has not turned back (abandoned its object, or regarded it as already gained), and still his hand is stretched out (to inflict new judgments).—The future form given to the verbs by Clericus is altogether arbitrary. Most of the later writers follow Luther in translating them as presents. But if this verse is not descriptive of the past, as distinguished from the present and the future, the Hebrew language is incapable of making any such distinction. This natural meaning of the language (which no modern version except Ewald’s fully expresses) is confirmed by the last clause, which evidently introduces something posterior to what is here described. It is not necessary to suppose, although it is most probable, that what is here described had actually taken place before the Prophet wrote. In this, as in some other cases, he may be supposed to take his stand between a nearer and a more remote futurity, the former being then of course described as past.— The trembling of the mountains is referred by Hendewerk to the earthquake mentioned Amos 1:1. Zech. 14: 5. Jarchi explains it of the fall of kings and princes. Junius makes the Prophet say that if such strokes had fallen upon mountains they would have trembled.—J. D. Michaelis supposes what is said of the dead bodies to be applicable only to a pestilence. It is most probable, however, that these strong expressions were intended simply to convey the idea of violent commotion and a general mortality. There is no need of referring what is said exclusively to evils suffered in the days of Joash and Amaziah (Junius) or in those of Ahaz (Vitringa), since the Prophet evidently means to say that all preceding judgments had been insufficient and that more were still required.—The act expressed by sis is not so much that of turning away as that of turning back or ceasing to pursue. (See Hengstenberg on Ps. 9:4. 18.) Saadias and Kimchi derive nrn&a from nt33 to cut or tear, in which they are followed by Calvin (mutilum), Junius (succisum), and the English version (torn). But all the ancient ver sions and most modern ones make 3 a preposition, and the best lexicographers derive the noun from rriD to sweep.— In the midst of the streets may be taken strictly to denote in the middle (Calvin: in medio viarum), or more indefinitely in, within. Vide supra, v. 8.
26. The former stroke having been insufficient, a more effectual one is now impending, in predicting which the Prophet does not confine him self to figurative language, but presents the approaching judgment in its pro per form, as the invasion and ultimate subjection of the country by a formidable enemy, vs. 26-30. In this verse he describes the approach of these invaders as invited by Jehovah, to express which idea he employs two figures not uncommon in prophecy, that of a signal-pole or flag, and that of a hiss or whistle, in obedience to which the last clause represents the enemy as rapidly advancing. And he raises a signal to the nations from afar, and hisses (or whistles) for him from the ends of the earth; and behold in haste, swift, he shall come.—Here, as in v. 25, the older writers understand the verbs as futures, but the later ones as presents. The verbs in the last clause have Vav prefixed, but its conversive power commonly depends upon a future verb preceding, which is wanting here. These verbs appear to form a link be-“ tween the past time of v. 25 and the unambiguous future at the end of this. First, he smote them, but without effect. Then, he raises a signal and whistles. Lastly, the enemy thus summoned will come swiftly.—The sin gular suffix in ft has been variously explained as referring to the king whose subjects had been previously mentioned (Targ. Jon.), or to the army as a whole, which had been just described as gentiles, heathen (Knobel, Hitzig.) or 6 to the ruling power under whose banners the other nations fought (Vitr. Hendewerk), or simply to one of the nations previously mentioned (Ges. Umbr.)—The nation meant has been also variously explained to be the Romans (Theodoret: vovg ‘Ptopaiovg dia rovrcav (i’i|e), the Babylonians (Clericus), and the Assyrians (Ges. Ew. etc.) But this very disagreement, or rather the indefinite expressions which occasion it, show that the terms of the description were designed to be more comprehensive. The essential idea is that the previous lighter judgments should be followed by another more severe and efficacious, by invasion and subjection. The terms are most emphatically applicable to the Romans.—The hissing or whistling, Hitzig supposes to have reference to some mode of alluring birds (Hos. 11: 11. Zech. 10: 8); but the common and more probable opinion is that it alludes to the ancient mode of swarming bees, described at length by Cyril. (See his words as given by Bochart, Hieroz. p. 506).—In the last clause a substantive meaning haste, and an adjective meaning light, are both used adverbially in the sense of swiftly.
27. The enemy, whose approach was just foretold, is now described as not only prompt and rapid, but complete in his equipments, firm and vigorous, ever wakeful, impeded neither by the accidents of the way nor by defective preparation. There is no one faint (or exhausted) and there is no one stumbling (or faltering) among them (literally in him). He (the enemy, considered as an individual) sleeps not, and he slumbers not, and the girdle of his loins is not opened (or loosed), and the latchet (string or band) of his shoes (or sandals) is not broken.—The English version follows Calvin in translating all the verbs as futures. The Vulgate supplies the present in the first clause, and makes the others future. But as the whole is evidently one description, the translation should be uniform; and as the preterite and future forms are intermingled, both seem to be here used for the present, which is given by Luther and most of the late writers.—The last clause is understood by Henderson and others as denoting that they do not disarm or undress themselves for sleep. But as the last verb always denotes violent separation, it is most probable that this whole clause relates to accidental interruptions of the march.—The question raised by Hendewerk and Henderson as to the kind of girdle here referred to, is of no exegetical importance, as it is only joined with shoes to represent the dress in general.—In him may be either put collectively for in them, or, as J. D. Michaelis supposes, may refer to the army; and Hendewerk accordingly has it slumbers not, etc.—The distinction made by some between taw; and “j^? (Cocceius: non dormitat, multo minus dormit) is unnecessary here, where the verbs seem to be used as mere poetical equivalents.
28. The description is continued, but with special reference to their weapons and their means of conveyance. For the former j bows and arrows are here put; and for the latter, horses and chariots (see ch. 2:7). Whose arrows are sharpened and all his bows bent (literally trod upon); the hoofs of his horses like flint (or adamant) are reckoned, and his wheels like a whirlwind, in rapidity and violence of motion.—Gesenius, Henderson, and others, omit the relative at the beginning, and Junius renders it as a conjunction (quia). But it serves to make the connexion with the verse preceding much more close and sensible.—As d”1^:^, like the Latin acutae, is a participle, the common version (sharp) does not fully express its meaning. Indeed from what is said of the bows immediately afterwards, the prominent idea would seem to be not that the arrows were sharp, but that they were already sharpened, implying present readiness for use.—The bows being trod upon has reference to the ancient mode of stringing, or rather of shooting, the bow being large and made of metal or hard wood. Arrian says expressly, in describing the use of the bow by the Indian infantry, “ placing it on the ground, and stepping on it with the left foot, so they shoot (ovrag ex?o£ettotw), drawing the string back to a great distance.” (See the original passage in Henderson.)—The passive verb larana cannot be accurately rendered they resemble (Ges. Hitz.), nor even they are to be counted (Aug. De Wette), but means they are counted (Cocc. Ew.), the preterite form implying that they had been tried and proved so.—The future form given to this whole verse by Calvin and Junius, and to the last clause by Lowth and Barnes, greatly impairs its unity and force as a description.
29. By a sudden transition, the enemy are here represented as lions, roaring, growling, seizing their prey, and carrying it off without resistance; a lively picture, especially to an oriental reader, of the boldness, fierceness, quickness, and success of the attack here threatened. He has a roar like the lioness, and he shall roar like the young lions, and shall growl, and seize the prey, and secure it, none delivering (i. e. and none can rescue it).— Cocceius, Vitringa, and the modern writers, use the present tense, as in the foregoing verses, to preserve the unity of the description. But there the preterite and future forms are mingled, whereas here the future is alone used, unless the textual reading *xwi be retained, and even then the Vav may be regarded as conversive. Besides, this seems to be the turning point between description and prediction. Having told what the enemy is, he now tells what he will do. It seems best therefore to adopt the future form used by the ancient versions, by Calvin, and by Luther, who is fond of the present, and employs it in the two foregoing verses.—Most of the modern writers follow Bochart in explaining tonb to denote the lioness, which is the more natural in this case from the mention of the young lions immediately afterwards. The image, as Henderson suggests, may be that of a lioness attended by her whelps, or rather by her young ones which are old enough to roar and seek their prey (see Ez. 19: 2, 3. and Gesenius s. v.).—The meaning of ra^s? is not che shall embraces (Vulg. amplexabitur), nor ‘he shall gather spoil’ (Calv. spolia corradet), nor he shall let it go’ in sport before devouring it (Luzzatto); but he shall carry it off safe, place it in safety, or secure it (Ewald: tobt und nimmt den Raub und sichert ihn ohne Retter.)
30. The roaring of the lion suggests the roaring of the sea, and thus a beautiful transition is effected from the one figure to the other, in describing the catastrophe of all these judgments. Israel is threatened by a raging sea, and looking landward sees it growing dark there, until, after a brief fluctuation, the darkness becomes total. And he (the enemy) shall roar against him (Israel) in that day like the roaring of a sea. And he shall look to the land, and behold darkness! Anguish and light! It is dark in the clouds thereof (i. e. of the land, the skies above it).—The Vulgate, Peshito, and a great majority of modern writers, disregard the Masoretic accents, and connect 7]qn with ^s, and ^.I’s with T|®n. Knobel appears to be the first who observed that this arrangement involves the necessity of vowel-changes also, as we must then read ^ for is and “riao for ite;. Those who adopt this interpretation either read darkness of anguish (Vulg. Hitz. Knobel) or darkness and anguish (Eng. Vs.), or darkness, anguish (Hendewerk). Vitringa still construes *iis separately, ’ as for the light/ but the others connect it with T|£Jn directly, c and the light is dark,’ etc. The only objection to the Masoretic interpretation (which, although retained by Cocceius, Rosenmuller, Gesenius, and Maurer, is not the common one, as Hitzig represents), is the alleged incongruity of making light and anguish alternate instead of light and darkness, a rhetorical nicety unworthy of attention where, there is at best but a choice of difficulties. Henderson says, indeed, that it is “ quite at variance with the spirit of the text, which requires a state of profound darkness, without any relieving glimpses of light.” But it is just as easy to affirm that “ the spirit of the text” requires the other construction, which is moreover recommended by its antiquity, traditional authority, simplicity, poetical beauty, and descriptive truth.—On the authority of the Aldine and Complutensian text of the Septuagint, Lowth supposes an omission in the Hebrew, which he thus supplies, ’ and these shall look to the heaven upward and down to the earth.’ But, as Barnes has well observed, “ there is no need of supposing the expression defective. The Prophet speaks of the vast multitude that was coming up, as a sea. On that side there was no safety. It was natural to speak of the other direction as the land or shore, and to say that the people would look there for safety. But, says he, there would be no safety there; all would be darkness.” Hitzig supplies the supposed defect by putting nix in antithesis to -px, ’ one looks to the earth and behold the darkness of distress, and to the light (i. e. the sun or sky) etc.’ But the introduction of the preposition is entirely arbitrary and extremely forced.—Kimchi and Junius explain rpB-^s to mean its ruins, deriving it from s^s to destroy (Hos. 10: 2). Clericus, following an Arabic analogy, translates it in condavibus, which seems absurd. The common derivation is from tps to distill (Deut. 32: 2. 33: 28), according to which it means the clouds, either strictly, or as a description of the heavens generally. Lowth and several of the later Germans give the particle a causal sense, through or by reason of its clouds; but the proper local sense of in its clouds or skies is retained by Gesenius, Ewald, and all the early writers. The second verb is taken indefinitely by all the modernGermans except Ewald, who translates it he looks, but as if by way of compensation, gives an indefinite meaning to the suffix in v^s which he renders over or upon one (iiber einem).—The use of the present tense, in rendering the first clause, by Cocceius and the later Germans, is hardly consistent with the phrase in that day, and destroys the fine antithesis between the future th^ and the preterite Tjdn describing the expected obscuration as already past.— Clericus appears to be alone in referring asa to the enemy (solo adspectu terrain Israeliticam terrebit!). The sense of the last clause, according to the Masoretic interpretation, is well expressed by Gesenius, ’ (bald) Angst, (bald) Licht,’ and more paraphrastically by an old French version, f il regardera vers la terre, mais voici il y aura des tenebres, il y aura affliction avec la lumiere, il y aura des tenebres all ciel audessus d’elle ‘
