Lecture One Hundred and Second
We said yesterday that some interpreters regard these words of the Prophet,
What is now subjoined has been added, in my view, in reference to what had already taken place, that is that God
And then for the same purpose is the next clause, -- that
What follows, And they have destroyed their shoots, or their branches, I take metaphorically, because the Israelites, as to outward appearances had been pulled up by the roots; for before the eyes of their enemies they were reduced to nothing, and their very roots were torn ups so that they perceived nothing left. The Lord indeed always preserved a hidden remnant; but this was done beyond the perceptions of men. But what the Prophet says metaphorically of the ruined branches, is to be understood of what was apparent.
1 That the Babylonian power is meant by "the destroyer," or disperser, or scatterer, is the opinion if Jerome, Drusius, Grotius, Marckius, and Newcome. But Kimchi, Dathius, Henderson, and some others, regard the "destroyer" as the king of Assyria. What agrees best with the context is the former opinion. Having in the preceding verse announced the release of the people of Israel from the rule of Assyria, the Prophet now introduces its destroyer, and then proceeds with the main object of his prophecy, and describes the fall of Nineveh. Marckius considers the whole verse as addressed to the Babylonian power under the person of the king, while Calvin regards it, with the exception of the first line or clause, as addressed ironically to Nineveh. The verbs are either participles or preterites indicative; but they are construed by the former as gerunds; most of them imperatives.
Ascend does the waster before thee;
He watches the siege, guards the way,
Makes firm the loins, exerts strength mightily.
But if "fortress" be preferred to "siege," it may be adopted consistently with the context. -- Ed.
2 Drusius confessed that he did not understand this verse. The view given of it by Calvin seems plain, and Marckius has taken the same view of it: but Newcome, as well as Henderson, differ widely, and give a rendering which seems not to comport with the context. It is like that of Drusius, which no doubt made him to say that he did not understand the passage.
For Jehovah restoreth the excellency of Jacob
As the excellency of Israel.
In this connection, this can have no meaning. The version of Henderson is the same, only he puts the verb in the future tense. The verb