Study

One thing had escaped my notice in the words of the Prophet — that great people and strong nations would come. We have said that “great” rather than “many” ought to be adopted. The latter meaning may indeed be allowed that the worshipers of God would come from various cities; but as the word עצומים, otsumim properly signifies strong, and as it is certain that the Prophet means the same thing by the two words, it is more probable that he speaks of strong and valiant people, as they are not so easily subdued; for the more any one excels in prowess, the more stiff is his neck to undertake the yoke. As then the strong and the brave, and such as are eminent in the world, are not so easily brought to submit to God, the Prophet expressly says, that they shall become teachable, and be made willing, so that pride, as it is usually the case, shall not be a hindrance to them. ⁹³⁹³     There seems to be no good reason for considering the two adjectives as describing the same thing. On the contrary, the reverse is most probable. Their number as well as their character is evidently here set forth; they were “many,” and “strong,” or mighty or powerful. The Septuagint and Jerome render the word “many,” and so do most interpreters. — Ed.

I come now to the passage in which the Prophet announces a heavy burden, or a severe and fearful prophecy respecting Syria and other neighboring nations. I prefer to retain the word “burden,” rather than to render it prophecy, as many expositors have done; for though משא, mesha, is sometimes taken simply for prophecy, yet there is here, as it appears to me, something particular intended; for the Prophet denounces God’s judgment both on Syria and on the surrounding countries, and the word prophecy is not suitable; for to say “the prophecy of the word,” would be strange and without meaning. But when he says, The burden of the word of God, the sentence is full, and flows well; for he reminds us that his word would not be ineffectual, but full of effect, as it would lie as a burden on Syria and on other countries, which they should not be able to shake off. The burden then of the word of Jehovah; that is, “I have now a prediction which will be grievous and severe to those heathens who now disturb the Jews, the chosen people.”

But this doctrine contains consolation to the godly; for they may hence know that they are safe under God’s protection, as he carries on war with their enemies; nay, his vengeance was now prepared against all those who harassed the Jews. As then he had before promised that incredible favor of God which we have noticed, so now he declares that the Church would be safe under the protection of God, inasmuch as vengeance was in readiness for all the ungodly.

But the Prophet mentions here only the cities known to the Jews, for it was enough to refer to them as an example, that the Jews might hence conclude that God would be always the protector of his Church, so that no enemies shall escape unpunished. The Prophet then no doubt mentioned these few cities to the Jews, that they might feel assured that nothing is so strong and impetuous in the world which God cannot easily subdue and lay prostrate. Now as we apprehend the Prophet’s object, we shall come to the words.

Some think that the word חדרך, chedrak, includes the whole of Syria, which seems to me probable. Others suppose that some notable city is meant, as Damascus is immediately subjoined. But as the matter is uncertain, and as there is no doubt but that the Prophet speaks of the kingdom of Syria, I will not contest the point. Be it then the name of a city or of a country, ⁹⁴⁹⁴     Blayney thinks it to be the name of a Syrian king, and so does Henderson. The former quotes Josephus, who calls Rehob, in 2 Samuel 8:3, [Λραχος]. This prince reigned over a part of Syria called Zobah. If this be admitted, then the three chief kingdoms of Syria are here named — Zobah, Damascus, and Hamath. But Henderson is disposed to think that it is a corruption of the word [חרר], the common name of the kings of Syria. — Ed. it is all the same, for the Prophet means that the vengeance of God was impending over the Syrians, and impending in such a manner, that it would not depart from them until they were wholly destroyed. For when he adds that its rest would be Damascus, he intimates that God’s judgment would not be like a storm, which soon passes away, but that it would be a heavy and burdensome mass, which could not be dissipated, according to what Isaiah says —

“The word came on Jacob and fell on Israel;” (Isaiah 8:9;)

that is, what God pronounced against Jacob fell on Israel. He indeed changes the name, but it is the same as though he had said — “When God shall punish Jacob, can the Israelites escape?” for they were the same. The sentence then shall fall, that is, it shall find its own place: in vain will they run here and there to escape. The Jews then will gain nothing by their flight; for the vengeance now denounced by the Lord shall lay hold on them. So also in this place he says, the burden of the word of Jehovah on the land of Chadrak and Damascus, the royal city, the metropolis, shall be its rest, its dwelling; for the Lord’s vengeance will fix its station there, and it cannot be thence removed. In vain then will the Syrians try in various ways to escape, for they must be pressed down by God’s hand, until they be laid prostrate. We now then understand in what sense the Prophet says that Damascus would be the rest, the habitation, or the abode of God’s vengeance.

He afterwards adds, For to Jehovah the eye of man. The particle כי, ki is to be taken here, I think, as an adverb of time, “When”. There is indeed in reality but little difference, except that the common rendering of it greatly obscures the meaning of the Prophet. But if it be taken as an adverb of time, the passage will read better, When the eye of man shall be to Jehovah, and of all the tribes of Israel; that is, when the Jews shall begin to turn to God without any dissimulation, but with real sincerity; then he says, God will in every way bless them, and raise up his hand against their enemies. The Prophet had before exhorted the Jews to repentance; for they had been too much given to sacrifices and fastings, while no integrity existed among them. So also he shows again that their hypocrisy was an hindrance, which prevented God to manifest his favor to them; and thus he reminds them, that the gate would be opened, and the way made plain and even for God’s favor and blessings, whenever they raised their eyes to him, that is, whenever they derived their hopes from him, and fixed on him their dependence. For to direct the eyes to God is nothing else than to look to him so as to fix on him all our thoughts. Some understand by “man” all mortals, but of this I approve not; nor do I doubt but that the Prophet refers to the Jews alone; and doubtless it is not consistent with the context to regard any but the Jews. It is indeed true, that the Prophet speaks here of the calling of the Gentiles, but so as to begin with the Jews; for as they were the first-born, so it was necessary for them to have the precedence. The Prophet then here declares that God would be glorious in his chosen people, and would lay prostrate all the bordering enemies. Then the eye of man signifies the same as the eye of the whole people; as though he had said, that after the Jews had begun to lay aside all dissimulation and devoted themselves to God, and cast all their hopes on him, they would then find God sufficiently powerful to lay in the dust all their enemies.

But he afterwards adds, by way of explanation, and of all the tribes of Israel. Some give this rendering, “How much more,” as though the Prophet reasoned here from the less to the greater. But, as I have already said, this cannot be maintained. First, this explanation is strained, “The eye of man, and especially of all the tribes of Israel;” for the Jews ought to have had the first place: and secondly, the particle waw has no amplifying sense. In short, he intended by a small particle to show that precedence belonged to the Jews. I do not then understand what they mean, who would include all nations in the word “man,” and then regard the Prophet as proceeding to mention the tribes of Israel. Now what I have stated, that the true servants of God were then few, is probable enough; hence the Prophet here exhorts the whole people to a union in religion. Whenever then the whole tribes of Israel directed their eyes to God, the burden of his word would then come upon Damascus and all the Syrians. ⁹⁵⁹⁵     This sentence is one of some difficulty. The Septuagint, the Targum, the Syriac, and the Arabic versions, give this meaning, — that Jehovah sees, i.e., observes, and therefore judges, all men, as well as the ten tribes of Israel: and this is the view taken by Grotius, Piscator, Marckius, Dathius, and Newcome. The version of the last is, —
   For the eye of Jehovah over man,
And over all the tribes of Israel.
   Literally it is,
   For to Jehovah (belongs) the eye (i.e. the seeing) of man
And of all the tribes of Israel.
   The “eye” here is supposed to be put for the capacity of seeing, and is rendered by some “spectator — the beholder,” or judge,—”For it belongs to Jehovah to be the beholder or the eyer of man,” or of mankind, “and of all the tribes of Israel.”
   But Kimchi, Blayney, and Henderson agree in the view of Calvin and of our version. The former meaning seems most suitable to the context, as a reason is given for God’s judgments on the surrounding Gentiles, for he observes the conduct of man in general as well as of the tribes of Israel: it is a declaration that his providence extends over all mankind. The paraphrase of Dathius is, “For Jehovah by his providence governs all men as well as the tribes of Israel.” — Ed.

Zechariah goes on with the same subject: for he says now, that destruction was nigh all the nations who, being neighbors, harassed the people of God. Yesterday I briefly referred to what he had in view, which was to show, that God would so defend his Church as to execute vengeance on all the ungodly who had unjustly persecuted it; and he spoke of the kingdom of Syria, which was contiguous to Judea. But he now goes farther, — that the wrath of God would extend to the remoter parts of Syria: for Hamath is Antioch the great, and it gave a name to a part of Syria. Damascus was the metropolis of the Syrian empire. But as we have said elsewhere, this word is variously taken in Scripture, but generally for the whole country extending from Judea to the Euphrates and even beyond it. We now then see why Zechariah adds Antioch to Syria, as though he had said, that God would now be the avenger of his people, not only by rewarding bordering cities, but also those afar off. He then passes on to Tyrus and Simon, which were, as it is well known, cities on the sea-side, and were also nigh to the Jews; for there was no great distance between Galilee and Phoenicia. But as we said yesterday, destruction is denounced on all the nations who had been inimical to the chosen people.

He says that Hamath, or Antioch, would be in its border. All nearly with one consent apply this to Judea or to Jerusalem, but they are mistaken; and this whole chapter is misunderstood by all expositors, Jews and others. I indeed feel ashamed when I see how widely they have departed from the meaning of the Prophet, and it will be almost a trial to me wholly to reject their mistakes. But it will become plainly evident that none of them have understood what the Prophet means.

They thus explain the passage, that Antioch would be within the borders of Judea, as God would consecrate to himself the lands which were before heathen. But the Prophet no doubt says, as I have already stated, that Antioch would be within the borders of Syria whenever God should visit them all for their wickedness, as though he had said, “God will involve in the same punishment that part of Syria which derives its name from Antioch, because with united forces had all the Syrians assailed his chosen people; though then they are far distant from Judea, they shall yet partake of the same punishment, because they took up arms against his Church.” Hamath then, or Antioch, shall be in the borders of Damascus; that is, it shall not be exempt from the punishment which God will inflict on the bordering kingdom of and. And as we advance this view will become more clear. ⁹⁶⁹⁶     And also on Hamath, which bordereth thereby. — Newcome. The construction of the whole passage, as given in our version by Newcome and Henderson, is not satisfactory. The resting-place of the burdens was to be Damascus, Hamath, Tyre, and Sidon. The following then would be its grammatical rendering —
    
   1. The burden of the word of Jehovah on the land of Hadrach; And Damascus shall be its resting-place, (For Jehovah has an eye to see men And all the tribes of Israel,)
   2. And also Hamath, which borders on it, Tyre and Zidon also: for she is very wise;
   3. And built hath Tyre a fortress for herself, And has heaped up silver as dust, And fine gold as the mire of the streets.
   4. Behold, the Lord will disposess her, And smite in the sea her strength, And with fire shall she be devoured.
   As to “Tyre and Zidon,” the expression “very wise” belongs to the latter, and not to the former, as Henderson suggests; and then the character or state of Tyre is described in the following lines. This exactly corresponds with the usual style of the Prophets; when two things are mentioned, the last is first explained, and then the first. The boast of wisdom was the character of Zidon; confidence in its strength and riches is what is ascribed to Tyre. — Ed.

He adds, Tyrus and Sidon, though it be very wise. The particle כי, ki, is used, which is properly causal; but we may gather from many parts of Scripture that it is taken as an adversative. Either meaning would not, however, be unsuitable, that God would take vengeance on the Sidonians and Syrians, because they were very crafty, or though they were cautious, and seemed skillful and cunning in managing their affairs: they were not however to escape God’s judgment. If the former meaning be approved, it was the Prophet’s object to show, that when men are extremely provident and labor to fortify themselves by crafty means, God is opposed to them; for it is his peculiar office to take the crafty by their own craftiness. As then too much cunning and craftiness displease God, it may suitably be said, that the Syrians and Sidonians were now summoned before God’s tribunal, because they were extremely crafty, as is commonly the case with merchants in wealthy and maritime cities; for they learn much cunning by the many frauds which they are almost compelled to use. Since then the Sidonians and Syrians were such, it was right to denounce vengeance on them. But the other view is equally suitable, that all the craft of Tyrus and Simon would not prevent God from executing his judgment. As to myself, I think that a reason is here given why God threatens ruin to the Syrians and Sidonians, even because they were given to crafty artifices, and thus circumvented all their neighbors.

But he uses a good word by way of concession; for all who intend to deceive cover their craft with the name of wisdom or prudence. “They wish to be cautious,” when yet they wickedly deceive others by their intrigues and frauds. A concession then is made as to the word wise: but the Prophet at the same time teaches us, that this kind of wisdom is hateful to God, when by the loss of others we increase our own wealth: for an explanation immediately follows —

For Tyrus has for herself built a fortress. The Prophet shows by these words how very cautious or prudent the Syrians had been; for they fortified themselves by strongholds, and thought themselves to be beyond the reach of danger. He then adds, and heaped to herself silver as dust, and gold as the mire of the streets, that is, accumulated wealth above measure; for he mentions “dust” and “mire” as signifying an immense heap; as though he had said, “They have worthless heaps of silver and gold for their vast abundance”. He no doubt includes silver and gold in the fortress which he mentions; for I do not confine the word fortress only to towers and strongholds; but the Prophet, as I think, states generally, that Tyrus was so furnished and fortified with wealth, forces, and all kinds of defences, that it thought itself impregnable.

There is a striking correspondence between צור, tsur, and מצור, metsur צור, Tsur, he says, has built מצור, metsur, a fortress. It is a paronomasia worthy of notice, but cannot be retained in Latin.

He now declares that God would be an avenger. Behold, he says, Jehovah will possess, or cause to possess, as some read, but they are mistaken, owing to the two meanings of the verb ירש, iresh, which means to possess and also to expel or impoverish; ⁹⁷⁹⁷     This verb is here confounded with [רש], which means to impoverish in Hiphil. But the Hiphil of [יוש] has the idea of expelling or driving out; it means literally to cause one to be inherited or heired, that is, by making another to succeed in his place. To dispossess, according to Henderson, rather than to cast out, according to our version and Newcome, is the idea of the original. The explanation here disapproved by Calvin, which is wholly inconsistent with the whole passage, has been derived from the Septuagint, who have rendered the verb as though it were in Kal, [κληρονομησει]. The Targum gives it the idea of driving or casting out. The Greek fathers, Theodoret and Cyril, not knowing Hebrew, could give no other explanation. Similar has been the source of not a few interpretations given by the fathers. — Ed. for interpreters think that a hope of favor and of salvation is here given to these cities, and say that they are now chosen by God as a possession. But this is wholly contrary to the intention of the Prophet, as it appears more clearly from a view of each clause.

Jehovah then will expel her, and smite her strength. The Prophet no doubt alludes to what he had already said — that Tyrus had heaped silver and gold; now on the other hand he declares that Tyrus would be exposed to a scattering; for the heap of gold and silver it had laid up would be dissipated by God: he will then dissipate; or if one chooses to take the verb as meaning to reduce to want, the contrast would thus be suitable — God will then impoverish, or expel her. Afterwards he adds, In the sea will he smite her strength. As Tyrus, we know, was surrounded by the sea, the Prophet by this reference shows God’s power in taking vengeance on her; for the sea would be no restraint or hindrance to God, when he resolved to enter there. The Syrians, indeed, thought themselves safe from every hostile attack, for they had the sea on every side as a triple wall and a triple rampart. Nor was Tyrus altogether like Venice; for Venice is situated in a stagnant sea, while the situation of Tyrus was in a very deep sea, as historians plainly show who relate its assault by Alexander the Great. It had indeed been before taken and plundered; but he did what none had ever thought of — he filled up a part of the sea, so that Tyrus was no longer an island.

We now see what Zechariah had in view, when he threatened ruin to Tyrus, though its strength was in the midst of the sea, beyond the reach of fortune, as it is commonly said. And she shall be consumed by fire. He means that Tyrus would not only be plundered, but wholly demolished; for we know that even the strongest things are consumed by fire. It follows —

In this verse also is described the devastation of those cities which the Prophet names; as though he had said, that all those cities which had risen up against God’s people were devoted to extreme vengeance. Zechariah says that none would be exempt from punishment, since the hand of God would be stretched forth, and extend everywhere, so that it might be easily concluded, that all those who had unjustly harassed the Church would be thus rewarded for their cruelty. This is the import of what is here said.

He says that Ascalon would see and fear; for at that time the Ascalonites were hostile to the Jews. He speaks the same of Aza, which the Greeks called Gaza; but they were deceived in thinking it was a name given to it by Cambyses, for the reason that Gaza means a treasure in the Persian language. This is childish. It is indeed certain that it has been owing to a change in the pronunciation of one letter; for ע, oin, is guttural among the Hebrews, and was formerly so pronounced, like our g: as they called Amorrah, Gomorrah, so Aza is Gaza. We have spoken of this elsewhere.

Now it appears from geography that these cities were near the sea, or not far from the sea, and having this advantage they gathered much wealth. But as wealth commonly generates pride and cruelty, all these nations were very troublesome to the Jews. This is the reason why the Prophet says that grief would come on Gaza, and then on Ekron and on other cities. He adds, Because ashamed shall be her expectation. There is no doubt but they had placed their trust in Tyrus, which was thought to be impregnable; for though enemies might have subdued the whole land, there a secure station remained. Since they all looked to Tyrus, the Prophet says that their hope would be confounded, when Tyrus was overthrown and destroyed. The sum of the whole is, that the beginning of the vengeance would be at Tyrus, which was situated as it were beyond the world, so as not to be exposed to any evils. He says then that the beginning of the calamity would be in that city, to which no misfortunes, as it was thought, could find an access. And then he mentions that other cities, on seeing Tyrus visited with ruin, would be terrified, as their confidence would be thus subverted. He afterwards adds, Perish shall the king from Gaza, and Ascalon shall not be inhabited; that is, such a change will take place as will almost obliterate the appearance of these cities. It follows —

In this verse the Prophet denounces a similar ruin on Azotus, and the whole land of the Philistines, or on the whole land of Palestine. For what interpreters say, that the Jews would dwell at Azotus as strangers, that is, though they had previously been counted aliens, is to reach neither heaven nor earth. The Prophet on the contrary means, that after the destruction of these cities, if any inhabitants remained, they would be like strangers, without any certain habitation. The Prophet then mentions the effect, in order to show that the country would be waste and desolate, so as to contain no safe or fixed dwellings for its inhabitants. Some render it spurious, as it is rendered in some other places; and they understand it of the Jews, because they had been before in a mean condition, as though they were like a spurious race. But their opinion is probable, who derive ממזר, memezar, from זור, zur, which means to peregrinate; and they quote other instances, in which the double ממ, mem, is used in the formations of a noun; and it is easy to prove, from many passages of scripture, that ממזר, memezar, means a stranger. ⁹⁸⁹⁸     That this is its meaning is generally admitted, as given by the Septuagint, the Targum, and the Syriac version, and adopted by Grotius, Newcome, Blayney, and Henderson. Lee accounts for the double [מ] by deriving the word from [מן], from, [עם], people, and [זר], a foreigner, or stranger. The poetical singular is used for the plural, as is the case in the following verse. The whole passage may be thus rendered —
    
   6. And dwell shall a stranger in Ashdod; (For I will cut off the pride of the Philistines;)
   7. And I will remove his blood from his mouth, And his abominations from between his teeth, And left shall he be, even he, for our God; So that he shall be as a chief in Judah, And Ekron as a Jebusite.
   The “his” and “he” in this last verse is the “stranger” in verse 6; and that is used in a collective sense, properly rendered strangers, or foreigners, [ἀλλογενεις] by the Septuagint; so that the plural, in all these instances, might suitably be adopted in a translation — The “pride of the Philistines” was cut off by introducing strangers into their cities; and this line may be considered as parenthetic. — Ed. And if any one carefully considers the design of the Prophet, he will see the truth of what I have said — that is, that his object is to show, that all the inhabitants of Azotus, and of the land of the Philistine, would be like lodgers, because all places would be desolate through the slaughter and devastations of enemies. As then Ashdod and Palestine had been before noted for the number of their people, the Prophet says that all the cities of Palestine, and the city Ashdod, would be deserted, except that there would be there a few scattered and wandering inhabitants, like those who sojourn in a strange land. It follows —

Interpreters do also pervert the whole of this verse; and as to the following verse, that is, the next, they do nothing else but lead the readers far astray from its real meaning. God says now, that he will take away blood from the mouth of enemies; as though he had said, “I will check their savage disposition, that they may not thus swallow down the blood of my people.” For here is not described any change, as though they were to become a different people, as though the Syrians, the Sidonians, the Philistine, and other nations, who had been given to plunders, and raged cruelly against the miserable Jews, were to assume the gentleness of lambs: this the Prophet does not mean; but he introduces God here as armed with power to repress the barbarity of their enemies, and to prevent them from cruelly assaulting the Church.

I will take away blood, he says, from their mouth; and he says, from their mouth, because they had been inured in cruelty. I will cause, then, that they may not as hitherto satiate their own lust for blood. He adds, and abominations, that is, I will take from the midst of their teeth their abominable plunders; for he calls all those things abominations which had been taken by robbery and violence. ⁹⁹⁹⁹     Kimchi, Drusius, Grotius, and others, have given the same view; but Jerome, Marckius, Newcome, Blayney, Henderson, and Hengstenberg, regard idolatry as intended here, the “blood” being that of the victims which the heathens drank, and the “abominations” being the things sacrificed to idols. What seems strongly to favor the view taken by Calvin is the phraseology; the metaphor being that of a wild beast devouring his prey, and of the prey being taken from him: this certainly ill comports with the notion of putting an end to idolatrous practices. — Ed. And he compares them to wild beasts, who not only devour the flesh, but drink also the blood and tear asunder the raw carcass. In short, he shows here, under the similitude of wolves and leopards and wild boars, how great had been the inhumanity of enemies to the Church; for they devoured the miserable Jews, as wild and savage beasts are wont to devour their prey.

It afterwards follows, and he who shall be a remnant. Some translate, “and he shall be left,” and explain it of the Philistine and other nations of whom mention is made. But the Prophet doubtless means the Jews; for though few only had returned to their country as remnants from their exile, he yet says that this small number would be sacred to God, and that all who remained would be, as it were, leaders in Judah, however despised they might have been. For there was no superiority even in the chief men among them; only they spontaneously paid reverence to Zerubbabel, who was of the royal seed, and to Joshua on account of the priesthood; while yet all of them were in a low and mean condition. But the Prophet says, that the most despised of them would be leaders and chiefs in Judah. We now perceive the Prophet’s meaning; for after having predicted the ruin that was nigh all the enemies of the Church, he now sets forth the end and use of his prophecy; for God would provide for the good of the miserable Jews, who had been long exiles, and who, though now restored to their country, were yet exposed to the ill treatment of all, and also despised and made even the objects of scorn to their enemies. He then who shall be a remnant, even he shall be for our God, as though he had said, “Though the Lord had for a time repudiated you as well as your fathers, when he drove you here and there and scattered you, yet now God has gathered you, and for this end — that you may be his people: ye shall then be the peculiar people of God, though ye are small in number and contemptible in your condition.” ¹⁰⁰¹⁰⁰     The explanation of this clause, though countenanced by some others, cannot yet be admitted. There is nothing in the text to justify the translation from the “stranger” in verse 6, and who is spoken of in this verse, to the Jewish nation. The foreigners or strangers inhabiting Ashdod are no doubt intended. So thought Theodoret, Drusius, Grotius, Blayney, and Newcome; and such is the view of Henderson, only that he applies the passage to the Philistines generally, and not to the strangers in Ashdod. To consider the foreigner or stranger as a “ruler,” seems not right. This prophecy was fulfilled, says Grotius, in the time of the Maccabees, and he refers to Josephus, 12:12, and to 1 Maccabees 5:66; and also in the time of Alexander, when many of the cities of the Philistines, especially Ashdod and Gaza, were conquered by the Jews, when many of them became proselytes to Judaism.
   The explanation of Blayney as to the latter part of the verse is as follows: that the stranger or strangers in Ashdod should be on the same footing as a privileged citizen in Judah, but that the Ekronite, the natural born Philistine should be as a Jebusite in Jerusalem, deprived of the privileges which he had when the country was his own. This would be to “cut off the pride of the Philistines.” — Ed.

Then he adds, these remnants shall be as leaders in Judah, that is, God will raise them to the highest honor; though they are now without any dignity, they shall yet be made by God almost all of them princes. It then follows, And Ekron shall be as a Jebusite. Some explain thus — that the citizens of Ekron would dwell in Jerusalem, which the Jebusites had formerly possessed; and others give another view, but nothing to the purpose. The Prophet speaks not here of God’s favor to the citizens of Ekron, but on the contrary shows the difference between God’s chosen people and heathen nations, who gloried in their own good fortune: hence he says, that they should be like the Jebusites, for they at length would have to endure a similar destruction. We indeed know, that the Jebusites had been driven out of that town, when Jerusalem was afterwards built; but it was done late, even under David. As then they had long held that place and were at length dislodged, this is the reason why the Prophet says, that though the citizens of Ekron seemed now to be in the very middle of the holy land, they would be made like the Jebusites, for the Lord would drive away and destroy them all. He afterwards adds —

He concludes what he had been speaking of, — that God would be the guardian of his chosen people, so as to repel on every side the violent assaults of enemies. It is then the same as though he had said, “though the Church is not strongly fortified, it shall yet be impregnable, for God’s protection is of more value than all human strength, than all aids and helps.” God then compares himself here to a moat and a bulwark, and other kinds of fortresses, I will be, he says, a camp to my house. He mentions here house rather than city, that the Jews might feel confident that there was sufficient help in God alone, though they might dwell in a private house or in a cottage. “My Church, though it be a small house, will I yet surround with my defences, so as to render it safe from all harm.”

He says, from the army; and then, from him that passes through, and from him that returns. He places the army in opposition to the house; and thus he exhorts the Jews, not to regard their own strength, but to know that God alone is far better shall all armies. Though then the whole world united together and collected all its forces, he still bids them to be calmly confident, for God alone would be sufficient to put to flight all armies. And according to the same meaning he refers to him that passes through and who returns; as though he had said, “Though enemies may wander through the whole earth and occupy it from one end to the other, yet I will cause my house to remain safe.” By him that returns, he intimates, that though enemies renewed their armies the second and the third time, yet God’s strength would be always sufficient to check their assaults. In a word, what is here taught is the perpetuity of the safety of God’s people, for he will never be wearied in defending them, nor will his power be ever lessened. It often happens that those who with the best intention succor their neighbors, by degrees grow wearied, or they may have their efforts prevented by various events; but the Prophet tells us, that God is not like men, wearied or unable, after having once helped his people and repelled their enemies; for he will be always ready to aid his people, were enemies to renew the battle a hundred times.

By enemy then he means forces; by passing through, the obstinate cruelty of enemies; and by returning, new wars, which one undertakes, when disappointed of his hope, by collecting a new army and repairing his strength. ¹⁰¹¹⁰¹     Perhaps this is too great a refinement. Marckius gives this meaning, that the “army” is a marshalled force, and that the passer through and the returner are individual enemies. But our version is very literal, only that passing through and returning may be applied to the army, —
   And I will be a camp to mine house from an host,
From it when passing through and from it when returning.
   Or literally,
   From the passing through and from the returning (i.e. host.)
   Newcome’s version is,
   And I will encamp about mine house with an army.
So that none shall pass through or return.
   This is neither grammatically correct, nor consistent with posterior facts; for armies did pass through the land, though the house or temple of God was not invaded. Henderson’s version is in substance the same with what I have given,
   And I will encamp about my house because of the army,
Both when it passeth through and when it returneth.
   The following line may be thus rendered—
   And come upon them shall no more the oppressor.
   The Septuagint give for oppressor [ἐξελαύνων], the driver away or banisher; the Targum has “tyrant,” which Grotius adopts. “Oppressor” is the word used by Drusius, Newcome, and Henderson. It has been said that no foreign oppressor, like the Babylonians, had invaded the land from this time to the advent of Christ, though the Jews had suffered much both from the Eygptian and Syrian kings; but the language here is so strong, that the promise must be considered as conditional, as all those promises were which were connected with their national covenant. “No more” has no limit: hence the promise must be viewed as conditional.
   “This promise,” says Dr. M‘Caul, “is of the same nature as most of the others made to Israel; that is, conditional upon their obedience. Moses has repeatedly laid down this as the general principle of God’s dealings with the Jews, especially in reference to the possession of blessing and prosperity in the land. (Deuteronomy 30:15-18.)” — Ed.

At length he adds, And pass shall no more the extortioner through them. This sentence explains what he had figuratively expressed, — that though the Jews had been exposed to the will of their enemies, yet God would not hereafter suffer them to be unjustly treated and to be plundered as they had been: for under the name of extortioner he includes all plunderers who had spoiled the miserable Jews of their goods. Then he says, For I have seen with mine eyes. It would be frigid, nay insipid, to explain this clause as some do, that is, as though the Prophet had said, — that he related what had been made known to him from above: for on the contrary God testifies here, that he had seen with his eyes how cruelly and disgracefully the Jews had been treated. And some, while they regard God as the speaker, very unwisely give this explanation, — that God already foresaw what he would do. But evidently God assigns here, as I have said, a reason why he purposed to deliver the Jews from injuries, and for the future to keep them safe and defend them; and the reason given is, because he saw what grievous wrongs they were suffering. And the Prophet speaks according to the usual manner adopted in Scripture; for though nothing is hid from God’s eyes, yet he is rightly said to see what he takes notice of, and what he declares must be accounted for before his tribunal. Though then God saw even before the creation of the world what was to take place afterward in all ages, yet he is rightly said to see what he begins to call to judgment. The Jews indeed thought they were neglected by him; for the Scripture everywhere says, that God closes his eyes, is asleep, lies down, forgets, cares not, when he hides himself and appears not as the avenger of wrongs. Hence, on the other hand, the Lord declares here, that he saw with his eyes those things which were not to be tolerated, inasmuch as enemies had passed all bounds, and had so far advanced and indulged in wantonness, that their pride and cruelty were become intolerable.