« PoprzedniaDalej »
torture. Yet it seems to me that locus languendi, even if one overlooks the permutation of r and n, is still a totabulum satis languidum for place of torture. I would like therefore, with J. D. Michaelis, GEsenius, KNobel, MEiER and others, to assume that nontro is an error of transcribing for Tilsloop, as also an old edition (Thessalon, 1,600) actually reads. It favors this, too, that >n" (superbire, opprimire) and v2. also correspond in -r
parallelism, iii. 5–ver. 5. Down bat (comp. Ezek. xix. 11), as epexegesis of pyron nton is any way to be understood as a tyrant's sceptre. This is confirmed by the statement of ver, 6.-Ver. 6. The expression
n^D "no- occurs only here: nono in Isa. i. 5; xxxi.
6; six. 13, in the sense of revolt. On "no- See at x. 4. The conjecture of DoEDERLEIN, that instead of Tino
we should read nnnn has, according to the anoy of n22, much plausibility. The confounding of A and n might easily happen in the unpointed text. Neither mino nor op occur elsewhere. Amp is nom. passirum: the being pursued, being hounded on, like up being scared off, cast away, 2 Sam. xxiii.6. Exp statios, Isa. xxix. 3. nPanp, stirred in, Lev. vi. 14' 3–Twn oc. curs again iv. 2: Iviii. 1–"a kindred to "no(comp. EwALD, 322, a.), is poetic negation. It occurs in Isaiah, again only xxxii.10. See on 92 ver. 21. Wer. 7. ny" nys) is an expression peculiar to the second part of Isa (xliv. 23; xlix. 13; lii. 9; liv. 1; Iv. 12) and does not occur elsewhere.—Wer. 8. npty with o involves the notion of rejoicing at misfortune: Ps. oxx. 2; xxxv. 19, 24; xxxviii. 17; Mic. vii. 8; Obad. 12.Wer. 9. * after Till" is constructio praegnans (comp. Mic. vii. 14), TR- nonpo however is the nearer qualification of the †: hell gets into uproar toward thee, that is in order to welcome thee as an arrival.—— ony x. 26; xxiii. 13—hing is, in the first half of the verse, like v. 14, construed as feminine. But when
the discourse continues with the masculine form nny,
the reason can hardly be because oxt; elsewhere (Job xxvi. 6) is used as masculine. For the question still arises, why does the Prophet vary the gender I think the Prophet in the first clause has the totality in mind, whereas in "l) only he means that special
dominant will that he ascribes to Sheol as to a person. The former, as with all collectives, he conceives as feminine: but this person, as a ruler he conceives of as masculine. [“HITzig explains this on the ground that in the first clause Sheol is passive, in the second active: MAUREB, with more success, upon the ground that the nearest verb takes the feminine or proper gender of the noun, while the more remote one, by a common license, retains the masculine or radical form, as in xxxiii. 9, (see GEs ENIUs, 3141, Rem. 1).”—J. A. A.) ver, 10. Jy" is employed according to well-known usage, whereby, not only the discourse responsive to other discourse, but discourse responsive to action is designated as answer (xxi. 9; Deut. xxi. 7; xxvi. 5; Job iii. 2; Mat. xi. 25; xxii. 1, etc.)—The Pual non only here comp. passages likeliii. 10; vii.10: Gen. xlviii. l, etc.; Deut. xxix. 21, etc., and the meaning cannot be ambiguous: tu quoque debilitatus es. Also notyp) Myox is a pregnant phrase: thou art made like us and brought to us. (Of this constr. praegn. J. A. A., says: “this supposition is entirely gratuitous.”]
this word in the sense of bright star, from bon, to shine – r (Job xxix. 3, etc.). The form bon can be formed after analogy of Torn, how (Mic. i. 8 K'thibh). It is, how+ -- r -ever, possible, too, that on is derived from hon, although there is no analogy for this, for so, ne's are not analogous, and i before strong consonants always lengthens to i as substitute for doubling (Ewald, § 84 a.o. It must only be that at the same time a sort of attraction took place, and thus the Tsere of the final syllable conformed to the vowel of the preceding syllable. Then helel could be identical with the name Hillel (Jud. xii. 13, 15); to which the remark may be added, that Rabbi HILLEL the younger (in the 4th Cent., after Christ) is named 'EAAñA by Epiphanius (Adv. Haer. II. p. 127. Ed. Paris.). Also Buxtorf (Ler. Chald. talm. et Rabb. p. 617) writes: bon Hillel, olim Hellel ut Emmanuel et Immanuel, de qua scriptione vide Drus. Observ. L. IX. c. 1.” That this bright star is the morning star appears from the addition onv-12–von with Acous. Exod. - r
xvii. 13: with by only in this place, which seems to depend on the latent notion of lording it, like finn
- - r RE", týri, are construed with the Accus., and *—
r r - r :
Ver. 15. The adversative thought is introduced by §s.
The restrictive fundamental meaning (“only,” which receives adversative force in such a connection = misi rectius direris i.e. sed. comp. Jer. v. 5) seems to involve here a certain irony: but pity, that thou must down to Orkus. "Yin "na" stands opposed to "Ex s". The deepest corner of the deep grave. "Yin properly, pit, grave, but the underworld, is, so to speak, the deepening and extending of the grave xxxviii. 18 and often.— The impers. Thin, according to DElitzsch, comes unsuitably both from the mouth of the dwellers in Hades, and from Israel that sings this Maschal; it is therefore to be construed as resumption of the discourse by the Prophet, who has before his mind as future, what the Maschal recites as past (comp. Thin ver. 11). But this departure from the role is improbable. Moreover it is grammatically unnecessary to take inn as future. It is present. It describes the descent into Hades as something now taking place, a movement not yet con
cluded. Thus Joshua (ix. 8) questions the emissaries of the Gibeonites Axin "sp; but Joseph his brethren (Gen. xlii. 7) on No. top. The former regarded those
questioned as arrivals, as it were still in the act of coming; the latter as ones who had arrived.—Ver. 16. nlrf (only here in Isaiah; beside this in Ps. xxxiii.
1. In that day wherein the Lord will grant Israel the deliverance described in vers. 1, 2, Israel shall sing a song of derision about the king of Babylon (vers. 3, 4a). The Prophet has no particular king in mind, but the king of Babylon in abstracto. With wonderful poetic vigor and beaut he shows how the proud possessor of the . power, who in titanic arrogance would mount to equality with the very Godhead, shall be cast down to the lowest degradation and wretchedness by the omnipotence of the true God. He begins with a joyful exclamation that the scourge of the nations is broken (vers. 4b-6). The earth now has rest; the very cypresses and cedars rejoice that they are no more felled (vers. 7, 8). On the other hand, the under-world, the kingdom of the dead, rises in commotion at the new arrival. Spectres |". to meet him—the princes under them rise off their seats (ver. 9). “Thou, too, comest to us,” they call to him (ver. 10). Then the Prohet takes up the discourse again, personatin srael, into Who mouth he puts the words, an brings out the contrast in the history of the Babylonian: Thy pomp is cast down to hell, the sound of revel in thy palaces is hushed, and thy body moulders in the grave, a star cast down from heaven (vers. 10–12). Thou wouldst raise thyself to the level of the Godhead, and now descendest into the deepest depth of the lower world (vers. 13-15). Also the subjects of the dead king express their thoughts at the spectacle of the unburied, cast-away corpse, seeing in this present wretchedness the punishment of past wrong-do. ing: Is this the man that shook and desolated the earth (yers. 16, 17)? While the bodies of other kings lie quiet in their graves, his corpse, without a grave, is cast away as a despised and trampled carcase (vers. 18, 19). This is the punishment for his having ruined land and nation. Therefore shall his generation be exterminated
(vers. 20, 21). Finally Jehovah Himself confirms the announcement of destruction, extending the warning of punishment to Babylon entire, and presents to it the prospect of desolation in the same manner as occurs chap. xiii. ver. 21 sq. (vers. 22, 23). 2. And it shall come to pass—hindereth.-Vers. 3, 6. A song of derision about the representative of the Babylonish world-power cannot be appropriate while one is in its power. When one is out of reach of his arm, then the long pent-up resentment may find expression. The service (noy, comp. xxviii. 21; xxxii. 17) is also called “hard” (noR, Exod. i. 6; vi. 9; Deut. xxvi. 6) in the description of the Egyptian
bondage. Thus we have a reminder of the resemblance between the first and the second exile.
3. The whole earth—against us.-Vers. 7, 8. But not merely the world of mankind, the impersonal creatures were o by this world-despot, who knew no law but his own passions, and they, too, rejoice, jubilant at the repose. Representative of all others, the elevated giants of the forest high up on Lebanon speak, to utter their joy that, since the end of the tyrant, they are no more felled. Cypress (xxxvii. 24; xli., 19; lv. 13; lx. 13), a hard and lasting wood, was used, not only for house and ship-building (1 Kings v. 8, 10; Ezek. xxvii. 5), but also in the manufacture of lances (Nah. ii. 4) and musical instruments (2 Sam. vi. 5; comp. Isa. xiv. 11). [“According to J. D. MicroAELIs, Antilibanus is clothed with firs as Libanus or Lebanon proper is with cedars, and both are here introduced as joining in the general triumph. J. A. A.]
4. Hell from beneath—like u" to us. —Vers. 9, 10. On Sheol see ver. 14. [“The Fnglish word Hell, though now appropriated to the condition or place of future torments, corresponds in etymology and early usage to the Hebrew word in question. GESENIUs derives it, with the German Hölle, from Höhle, “hollow;” but the English etymologists from the Anglo-Saxon helan, “to cover,” which amounts to the same thing, the ideas of a hollow and a covered place being equally appropriate. As Sheol, retained by HENDERSON, *} the Greek word Hades, introduced by Low TH and BARNEs, require explanation also, the strong and homely Saxon form will be preferred by every unsophisticated taste. EwALD and UMBREIt [and NAEGELSBACH] have the good taste to restore the old word Hölle in their versions. J. A. A.] As the Prophet has before personified the trees of Lebanon, so here he personifies the world of the dead. He presents it as governed by a common will. This will, so to speak, the will of the ruler, roused by the appearance of the king of Babylon, electrifies the entire kingdom, so that it gets into unusual commotion and turns to the approaching king in wonder (comp. ver. 16). Especially the kings already there in the kingdom of the dead, the colleagues of the Babylonian, are in commotion. D'REY (xxvi. 14, 19) are the lax, nerveless, powerless, who have no body, and thus no life-power more, who are only outlines, shades. The word is without article, likely because not all b No", but only a part of them, i.e., all to"TJ' (the strong ones, or he-goats) shall be made to rise. These are called he-goats (i. 11; xxxiv. 6), not only because on earth, they were the leader-goats of the nation-flocks %. x. 3; Ps. lxviii. 31; Jer. I. 8), but because they are still such. It seems to me that there underlies here the representation of Ps. xlix. (14) 15: “Like sheep they are laid in the grave; death shall pasture them” [feed on them, Eng. Version.]. Therefore, perhaps it reads Yos, earth, and not the earth, for the latter would be the earth as abode of the living. In the biolo of the dead the dead are like a great flock—death pastures them: but those that were he-goats on earth are such also in the under-world. For the latter has no independent life. It only reflects in outline what life accomplished in complete, corporeal existence. Only to the end of ver. 10 do the words of the shades extend. For, on the one hand, much discourse does not become them (KNobel), and, on the other, much of what follows does not become the mouths of shades, viz.: the derision of the Babylonian that would retort on themselves, and because vers. 16 a and 20 a they would speak of themselves in the third .’son. Therefore from ver. 11 on the author of the Maschal again speaks. [“The ancient versions and all the early writers understand D'NET to mean giants. Its application to the dead admits of several explanations equally plausible with that of GESENIUS (who in the earlier editions of his Lexicon and in his Commentary on Isaiah derives it from 85", but in the last edition of his Lexicon derives it from 75", to be still or quiet, a supposititious meaning founded on an Arabic analogy), and entitled to the preference according to the modern laws of lexicography, because instead of multiplving, they reduce the number of distinct significations. The shades or spectres of the dead might naturally be conceived as actuall larger than the living man, since that which is shadowy and indistinct is commonly exaggerated by the fancy. Or there may be an allusion to the
Canaanitish giants who were exterminated by divine command, and might be chosen to represent the whole class of departed sinners. Or, in this case, we may suppose the kings and great ones of the earth to be distinguished #. the vulgar dead as giants or gigantic forms. Either of these hypotheses precludes the necessity of finding a new root for a common word, or of denying its plain use elsewhere. As to mere poetical effect, so often made a test of truth, there can be no comparison between the description of the dead as weak or quiet ones, and the sublime conception of gigantic shades or phantoms.” Some comment on the text as if it were “not a mere prosopopoeia or poetical creation of the highest order, but a jo. from the popular belief of the Jews as to the locality, contents and transactions of the unseen world. Thus GESENIUs, in his Lexicon and Commentary, gives a minute topographical description of Sheol, as the Hebrews believed it to exist. With equal truth a diligent compiler might construct a map of hell, as conceived by the English Puritans, from the descriptive portions of Paradise Lost. This kind of exposition is chargeable with a rhetorical incongruity in lauding the creative genius of the poet, and yet making all his #. creations commonplace articles of popular lief. The true view of the matter, as determined both by !. and taste, appears to be that the passage now before us comprehends two elements, and only two: religious verities or certain facts, and poetical embellishments. It may not be easy to distinguish clearly between these—but it is only between these that we are able or have any occasion to distinguish. The admission of a tertium uid in the shape of superstitious fables is as false in rhetoric as in theology.” J. A. A.] 5. Thy pomp-of the pit.—Vers. 11–15. The contrasts between what the Babylonian would be and what he now is are here set forth. The pomp he prepared for his eyes to see, and the glorious sounds he let his ears hear are swallowed up by hell. His body, once so dearly cared for and couched, has now maggots for a couch and worms for a covering. Passages from Job (vii. 5; xxi. 26) seem here to present themselves to the Prophet's mind. Shining and high was he once, like the morning star; now he is fallen from hea
Ven. bon, shining star, is called “son of the
morning,” because it seems to emerge out of the morning dawn (comes et alumnus aurorae). “In the southern heavens, when mirrored in the waves of the sea, this planet has a brighter gleam than with us” (LEY RER in HERz. R. Encycl. XIX. p. 563). TERTULLIAN, GREGoRY THE GREAT, and latterly STIER, with reference to Luke x. 18, have taken the star fallen from heaven for Satan. Hence originates the name Lucifer (VULGATE– although ninjo, Job xxxviii. 32, is also so rendered), Śoc pópoc (LXX.). Once he was mighty over the nations—but now he is himself broken and cast to the earth (xxii. 25). The following And thou hast said, etc. (ver. 13) seems at first sight to stand in antithesis to what precedes (ver. 12). But examination shows that vers. 13–15 belong together. For the Tomn, “thou art brought down,” ver. 15, corresponds to
ver. 12 is complete in itself, each clause of it containing a complete antithesis; the lofty star is fallen, the conqueror lies prostrate on the ground. Thus the before Tins is not adversative, but simply the copulative: and thou who thoughtst to mount to the heavens must go down to hell. The world-power is by its very nature inimical to God: its aim is to supplant God and put itself in His place. This tendency is indwelling in the worldpower derived from its transcendental author, Satan, and is realized in every particular representative. Thus, then, here the Babylonian expresses his purpose of assuming the highest place, not simply on earth among the lords of the world, but in heaven itself, and that above the stars, which seem here to be conceived of as the residences of the spirits of God, the n\Nix, Job xxxviii. 7, and the spheres of their manifestation, according to heathen notions, which very well suit in the mouth of the Babylonian. Let him be enthroned above the stars, and he, too, is “god of hosts.” Let the throne of the potentate be above the stars; then he shall stand on the pinnacle of the sacred mountain of the gods, about which the constellations circle, and which the heathen notions of the Orient represent as in the North. This mountain is variously named by the different nations. It is called Meru (Kailāsa, in the direction beyond the Himalaia) by those in India, Alburg by the others; nor does the Olympus of the Greeks stand wholly disconnected herewith. Comp. Rhode, Heil. Saga des Zendvolkes, p. 229 sq.; GEsENIUs, Jes. II. p. 516 sqq.; LASSEN, Ind. Alterthumskunde [.. p. 34 sq.; Mévo. Phön. II. 1, p. 414; Kohut, Jiid. Angelol. u. Daemonol. in den Abhh.. f. d. Kunde des Morgenl., 1866, p. 57. Many expositors down to FUERst (Conc. p. 501) and SHEGG [.J. A. A. states both views without deciding; so also substantially BIRKs) have been led by the expression Top him to hold that the
mountain meant in the text is Zion, as the gathering place of the Israelites, for which they appeal especially to Ps. xlviii. 3. But Zion lay neither to the north of Palestine nor to the north of Jerusalem, nor does the mention of Zion in this sense become the lips of the possessor of the worldpower. Donžno (remotest corners, ENG. VERs. sides), are the thighs, which (considered from within outwardly), form the extremestboundaries, as well as (regarded in their junction), the extremest points. Thus the word stands for the inmost corner (e.g., of a cave, 1 Sam. xxiv. 4) as well as for the extremest boundary of a land. Thus Jer. vi. 22; xxv. 32 says 'ns onji' (sides, coasts of the earth); and here Isa. (and after him Ezek. xxxviii. 6, 15; xxxix. 2) says "5x" (ertremest, highest North). The expressions “above the stars of God” and “mount of the congregation” signify the loftiest height intensively, “the heights of the clouds” (By "moil–an expression found only here), in an extensive sense. For as far as the clouds extend (Ps. xxxv. 6; lvii. 11; cviii. 5) the dominion of the true God reaches, and everywhere the clouds are His air chariots and air thrones (xix. 1; Ps. xcvii. 2; civ. 3; Dan. vii. 13). If then, the Babylonian reigns in the loftiest heights and every where, he has become like the highest God. But thereby he has supplanted the highest God: for two cannot at once occupy the
highest place. And this, as remarked above, is the aim of Satan and of his earthly sphere of power, the world-power, which culminates in Antichrist (Dan. xi. 36; 2 Thess. ii. 3 sq.). This tendency of the world-power explains how, not only heathen, but now and then also Jewish and Christian princes, have laid claim to divine honors, or at least have suffered such to be paid them. CURTIUs (VIII. 5) praises the Persians because: non pie solum, sed etian prudenter reges suos inter Deos colunt. In inscriptions Persian kings are explicitly called ěkyovo, Geón, or ) ovovo 34 or, and even boot. Comp. HENGSTENBERG, Introd. to the O. Test. I. [p. 124 sqq. of the German Ed.]. This is well known in regard to the Roman Emperors. Such deification had its extremest illustration in the case of Diocletian, who made himself an object of divine worship as a representative of the highest God. Comp. ALB. Vog EL, Prof., Der Kaiser Diocletian, ein Vortrag, Gotha, 1857. Herod let himself be called God, and had to suffer dearly for that assumption of honor such as belongs to God alone (Acts xii. 21 sqq.). In Christian Europe, too, there have not been wanting instances of such heathenish adulation of princes. See under Doctrinal and Ethical remarks below. Ver. 15 expresses, in contrast with the pretensions of the Babylonian, what his actual fate shall be. [See above in Tert. and Gram.] 6. They that see—with cities.—Vers. 16–21. “They that see” are not the denizens of hell, for they have before them the dead as an unburied corpse. The underlying thought of the passage is, however, that the sins of the deceased are enumerated (vers. 16, 17), and his fate is designated as their merited punishment. Thus it says, “they that see thee,” i. e. they that see thee lying an unburied corpse look upon thee. , Because he destroyed the rest of countries, he himself now finds no rest in the grave. Because he
made a desert of the fruitful land (ban to be taken in this sense here in contrast with "27-2, comp. on xiii. 11), he lies himself a,deserted carcase; because he showed no pity to prisoners, he is himself pitilessly dealt with. I do not think it probable that the following words are to be ascribed to others than the D'RT. those seeing thee, ver. 16, e.g. to the Prophet. The internal connection with vers. 16, 17 is too close. “Is this the man,” says ver, 16? What kind of man? Why just that one who, according to ver. 19, lies as a trampled carcase. Then ver, 22, what the Prophet says in the name of the Lord, comes in all the more emphatically as confirming this. It is then the subjects of the king that remark, that whereas all other kings lie in state in the tombs of their ancestors (comp. 2 Kings xxi. 18, 2 Chr. xxxiii. 20) their king is cast away far from his grave (!!?=procul, Jer. xlviii.45; Lam. iv. 9). But he is cast away as a despised branch. When trees are felled, or pruned, many a small branch, which compared to the whole tree is worthless, is cast aside and trampled in the mud. Most expositors in explaining the following
words take vio as part pass. But it seems to me that then the two following participles appear very superfluous. For what does it amount to to describe the Chaldean as covered with the slain that are thrust through and carried down to the pit? It is otherwise if, with AQU, THEOD., LUTHER, FUERST (conc.), and others, we take va', as
substantive. Then it is said that the corpse of the Chaldean is cast away, not only as a despised branch, but also as the garment of the slain who were thrust through with the sword and buried. For were they thrust through with a sword, then, too, the garment would be cut into holes, and at least spotted with blood, and if they are buried, it is explained how their garment comes into the hands of others. When the dead are buried on the field of battle, their clothes are taken off them, but those that are torn and cut in holes and smeared with blood, are cast away, while those unharmed are retained as valuable booty. “The stones of the pit” cannot be the stones of a grave on the top of the earth. For neither the rock-hewn grave, nor a walled-up tomb, nor a grave covered with stones to avoid the trouble of shoveling up a mound, has any meaning in this connection; though it may be said by the way, that heaping up stones is no less troublesome than shoveling up a mound. Buried in general is the chief thing. But there is only one hia. *pit, that has stones under all circumstances. . It is the widening and deepening of the
grave (hist see ver. 15), that is on the surface.
This is in the interior of the earth. This interior is any way closed about by the boy, pillars, (Job ix. 6), Dono foundations, (Ps. civ. 5) of the earth; but these are the mountains (comp. Prov. vii.25) which are thence called “strong foundations of the earth" Mic. vi. 2. But that the foundations or the roots of the earth consist of rock was known to the ancients as well as to us. The king, as an unburied, thrown away corpse, shall not be reunited in the grave with those other dead which, according to ver. 19, are buried.—The king destroyed his land by depotism and wars, and sacrificed his subjects in masses. Thus, not only himself, but his entire dynasty shall be destroyed. The name of his race shall become extinct as godless. To this end his seed must be slain. The people themselves demand it. They resolve that this generation shall not be raised up to possess the land and fill it with cities. #. cities contributes to security, the establishment of dominion, the interests of trade, and the cultivation of the ground. A builder of cities must ever be a mighty man. There is no need, therefore, to change B'ny, as some would do, to Dyn; (Ewald), Do! (Hitzig), boy (METER). On the other hand one must be careful not to press all the particular traits of this prophecy. What we said above concerning the i coloring of prophecy is Poio also here. 7. For I will—saith the LORD of hosts.-Vers. 22, 23. These are words of the Prophet which he speaks in the name of Jehovah. Therefore the word of God constitutes the formal conclusion of the prophecy, the Prophet resuming the thread of discourse and keeping it to the end. He confirms thereby the words of the people by giving them a general and more comprehensive direction. What they had said
only against the royal race is changed to a denunciation of punishment against the kingdom of Babylon in general. Its cities shall become the possession (Job xvii. 11; Obad. 17) of the porcupine (xxxiv. 11; Zeph. ii. 14), and, (in consequence of the ruin of the embankments of the Euphrates), swampy marshes (xxxv. 7: xli. 18; xlii. 15). By the porcupine appears to be meant the echinus aquatica, which was found of unusual size (according to STRABO, xvi. 1) on the islands of the Euphrates. Comp. BochART, Hieroz. II., p. 454 sqq.
DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL.
1. On xiii. 2–13. The prophecy concerning the day of the Lord has its history. It appears first in the form of the announcement of a scourge of locusts (Joel); then it becomes an announcement of human war-expeditions and sieges of cities. Finally it becomes a message that proclaims the destruction of the earth and of its companions in space. But from the first onward, the last particular is not wanting: only at first it appears faintly. In Joel ii. 10, one does not know whether the discourse is concerning an obscuration of the heavenly bodies occasioned only by the grasshoppers or by higher powers. But soon (Joel iii. 4, 20) this particular comes out more definitely. In the present passage of Isaiah it presses to the foreground. In the New Testament (Matth. xxiv. 29; Mar. xiii. 24 sq.; Luke xxi. 25) it takes the first and central place. We observe clearly that the judgment on the world is accomplished in many acts, and is yet one whole; and as on the other hand nature, too, is itself one whole, so, according to the saying: “whether one member suffer, all the members suffer with it ‘’ (1 Cor. xii. 26), the catastrophes on earth have their echo in the regions above earth. 2. On xiii. 4 sqq. “God cannot do otherwise than punish accumulated wickedness. But He overthrows violence and crime, and metes out to tyrants the measure they have given to others, for He gives to them a master that the heathen shall know that they too are men (Ps. ix. 21; xi. 5).” —CRAMER. [On xiii. ver. 3. “It cannot be supposed that the Medes and Persians really exulted, or rejoiced in God or in His plans.—But they would exult as if it were their own plan, though it would be really the glorious plan of God. Wicked men often exult in their success: they glory in the execution of their purposes; but they are really accomplishing the plans of God, and executing His great designs.”—BARNEs.] [On ver, 9. “The moral causes of the ruin threatened are significantly intimated by the Prophet's calling the people of the earth or land its sinners. As the national offences here referred to, VITRINGA enumerates pride (ver. 11 : xiv. 11, xlvii. 7, 8), idolatry (Jer. 1. 38), tyranny in general (xiv. 12, 17), and oppression of God's people in particular (xlvii. 6).”—J. A. ALEXANDER.] 3. On xiii. 19 sqq. Imperiti animi, etc. “Unlearned minds when they happen on allegories, can hold no certain sense of Scripture. And unless this Papal business had kept me to the simle text of the Bible, I had become an idle trifler in allegories like Jerome and Origen. For that