u in Ihle case W?£? would have no meaning/1 but as living in the royal castle, which was situated in the middle of the city, on the Euphrates, Inasmuch as the city is taken "from the end" (»"ttf|30),;.t-. on all sides, the messengers who bring the news to the king's fortress must meet each other. — Ver. 32 permits of being taken as a continuation of the message brought to the king. nnajJD, "crossing -places," do not here mean "fords" (Judg. iii. 28); for such shallow places, where one could go through the river, are not to he found in the Euphrates at Babylon: they mean bridges and ferries, because, in addition to the.stone bridge built by Nebuchadnezzar (Herodotus, i. 186; see Duncker's Geschichtc, i. S. 859), there must also have been at Babylon, throughout its large extent, other means of crossing, either by bridges of boats or ferries. 'BfeTW, "they have been taken," seized by the enemy; cf. xlviii. 41. D^:s% are ponds and artificial lakes which had been formed for the protection of the city, of the waters of the Euphrates (Herodotus, i. 185; Arrian, vii. 17); these "they have burned with fire." Inasmuch as a burning of ponds is an impossibility, many, with Kimchi, would understand DnMK of the reeds of the marshes. But the word has no such meaning; moreover, even if it had, the burning of the reeds would have no significance for the taking of the city. Others think of the sluices and the enclosures of the artificial waters, which enclosures were constructed of wood-work; but apart from the basin of water at Sepharvaim, which could be opened by sluices, the enclosure of the ponds with wood-work is a matter of much doubt, and a burning of the wood-work is not a burning of the ponds. The expression, as Calvin long ago remarked, is hyperbolic, and not to be pressed: Propheta hyperbolice ostendit, siccata fuisse vada Euphrates ac si quis lignum exureret igni supposito; hoc qnidem aquis non conve?iit, sed hyperbolice melius exprimit miraculum. On the whole, the picture is not to be taken as a description of the historical circumstances connected with the taking of Babylon by Cyrus; neither, therefore, is the burning of the ponds to be referred to the fact that the bed of the Euphrates was made dry through diversion of the stream (Herodotus, i. 191); but we have here a poetic colouring given to the thought that all Babylon's means of offence and defence will fall into the power of the enemy and be destroyed by them. For (according to the reason assigned in ver. 33 for what has been described) the Almighty God of Israel has decreed the destruction of Babylon. " The daughter of Babylon (i.e. not merely the city, but the kingdom of Babylon) is like a threshingfloor at the time when they tread it," i.e. stamp on it, make the ground into a threshing-floor by treading it hard.1 W??n might be the infinitive (Ewald, § 238, (/): it is simpler, however, to take it as a perfect, and supply the relative tj;x. The meaning is, that Babylon is ripe for judgment. DJJO "riy, " yet a little while" (i.e. soon), comes the time of harvest, so that the grain will be threshed, i.e. the judgment will be executed. The figure reminds us of Isa. xxi. 10, cf. Joel iv. 13, Mie. iv. 15, etc. — Ver. 34 f. This judgment comes mi Babylon for its offences against Israel. The king of Babylon has devoured Israel, etc. Those who complain, in ver. 31, are the inhabitants of Judah and Jerusalem, in whose name the prophet enumerates the crimes of Babylon. u Nebuchadnezzar has devoured us," i.e. oppressed us. The plural suffixes to the verba have been needlessly changed in tl, ingulan, for the simple reason, perhaps, that with W^O and in ver. 35 the address makes a transition into the lingular. DDJJ signifies to throw enemies into confusion by causing a panic, for the purpose of destroying them; hence to d<, 1 I ut. ii. 15; here to destroy, crush. " He sot us down like an empty vessel " refers to the country and the people; he has swept the country of human beings, and robbed the people cf everything. plfl, usually a sea-monster, crocodile (Isa. xxvii. 1, li. 9, etc.); here a beast of prey which devours everything. CnW, " delights," then "dainty meats," Gren.xlix.20.1 nnn, frulll nn, signifies to wash away, push away (see Delitzsch on ha. iv. 4); mother
1 "The threshing-floor is an open spot in the field, carefully levelled sod
cleared from stones, etc., that the grain may lt 0n it for thresh-
tor the threshing-floors, which an, then const ni. r each other, of a
circu ar form, perhaps fifty feet in diameter, merely by beating the earth hard."— Robinson's Pal ii. 227.
2 The form actually found in the Masoretic text is iijjg -from (out of, with) my dainties.: — i a. 6" ""
U! the wrong done me) come upon Babylon." This will also dry up the Bea of Babylon, and make her spring dry UV- Many tors understand these latter words metaphorically, as referring to the sea of nations sui d Babylon
:<. 42, 55), and view the treasures and riches as the fountain from which the sea of nations sprang up (Hitzig)j but the context demands a literal interpretation, inasmuch as in ver. 37 the subject treated of is the laying waste of the country. The sea of Babylon is the Euphrates, with its canals, IaJ and marshes, i.e. the abundance of water to which Babylonia owed its fertility, and the city its influence as the centre of the then known world, [saiah (x\i. 1) accordingly calls Babylon, emblematically, the desert of the sea, inasmuch as the region in which Babylon stands is a plain, broken in such a manner by the Euphrates, as well as by marshes and lakes, as that the city, so to speak, swims in the sea (Delitzsch). The source or spring of the sea is the Euphrates, and the drying up of this spring is not to be understood literally of the drying up of the Euphrates, but signifies a drying up of the springs of waterthat fertilize the country. On the figures employed in ver. 37, cf. ix. 10, xviii. 16, xlix. 33.
Vers. 38-49. The inhabitants of Babylon fall; the city perishes with its idols, to the joy of the whole world.— Ver. 38. " Together they roar like young lions, they growl like the whelps of lionesses. Ver. 39. When they are heated, I will prepare their banquets, and will make them drunk, that they may exult and sleep an eternal sleep, and not awake, saith Jahveh. Ver. 40. I will bring them down like lambs to be slaughtered, like rams with he-goats. Ver. 41. How is Sheshach taken, and the praise of the whole earth seized! How Babylon is become an astonishment among the nations! Ver. 42. The sea has gone up over Babylon: she is covered with the multitude of its waves. Ver. 43. Her cities have become a desolation, a land of drought, and a steppe, a land wherein no man dwells, and through which no son of man passes. Ver. 44. And I will punish Bel in Babylon, and will bring out of his mouth what he has swallowed, and no longer shall nations go in streams to him: the wall of Babylon also shall fall. Ver. 45. Go ye out from the midst of her, my people! and save ye each one his life from the burning of the wrath of Jahveh. Ver. 46. And lest your heart be weak, and ye be afraid because of the report which is heard in the land, and there comes the [ = this] report in the [=this] year, and afterwards in the [=rthat] year the [ = that] report, and violence in the land, ruler against ruler. Ver. 47. Therefore, behold, days are coming when I will punish the graven images of Babylon; and her whole land shall dry up,1 and all her slain ones shall fall in her midst. Ver. 48. And heaven and earth, and all that is in them, shall sing for joy over Babylon: for the destroyers shall come to her from the north, saith Jahveh. Ver. 49. As Babylon sought that slain ones of Israel should fall, so there fall, in behalf of Babylon, slain ones of the whole earth."
This avenmn£ judgment shall come on the inhabitants of Babylon in the midst of their revelry. Ver. 38. They roar and growl like young lions over their prey; cf. ii. 15, Amos iii. 4. When, in their revelries, they will be heated over their prey, the Lord will prepare for them a banquet by which they shall become intoxicated, so that they sink down, exulting (i.e. staggering while they shout), into an eternal sleep of death. Bftn? "their heat," or heating, is the glow felt in gluttony and revelry, cf. Hos. vii. 4 f., not specially the result or effect of a drinking-bout; and the idea is not that, when they become heated through a banquet, then the Lord will prepare another one for them, but merely this, that in the midst of their revelry the Lord will prepare for them the meal they deserve, viz. give them the cup of wrath to drink, so that they may fall down intoxicated into eternal sleep, from which they no more awake. These words are certainly not a special prediction of the fact mentioned by Herodotus (i. 191) and Xenophon (Cyrop. vii. 23), that Cyrus took Babylon while the Babylonians were celebrating a feast and holding a banquet; they are merely a figurative dress given to the thought that the inhabitants of Babylon will be surprised by the judgment of death 1 Rather, " shall be ashamed; " see note at foot of p. 311.— Ta.
in the midst of their riotous enjoyment of the riches and isures taken as spoil from the nations. In that fact, however, this utterance lias received a fulfilment which manifestly confirms the infallibility of the word of God. In ver. 40, what has been said is confirmed by another figure; cf. xlviii. 5 and 1. 27. Lambs, rams, goats, are emblems of all the classes of the people o( Nrael; cf. [sa. xwiv. 6, Kzek. xxxix. 18. — Ver. •11 i(. The fearful destruction of Babylon will astonish the world. — Ver. 41 is an exclamation of astonishment re<jardin£ the conquest of the city which was praised throughout the world. As to Tw'ir', Bee on ver. 1 and xxv. 26. n;nn, "praise," is here used for " a subject of praise and fame; " cf. xlix. 25. — Ver. 42 f. Description of the fall. The sea that has come over Babylon and covered it with its waves, was taken figuratively, even by the Chaldee paraphrasts, and understood as meaning the hostile army that overwhelms the land with its hosts. Only J. D. Michaelis was inclined to take the words in their proper meaning, and understood them as referring to the inundation of Babylon by the Euphrates in August and in winter. But however true it may be, that, in consequence of the destruction or decay of the great river-walls built by Nebuchadnezzar, the Euphrates may inundate the city of Babylon when it swells into a flood, yet the literal acceptation of the words is unwarranted, for the simple reason that they do not speak of any momentary or temporary inundation, and that, because Babylon is to be covered with water, the cities of Babylonia are to become an arid steppe. The sea is therefore the sea of nations, cf. xlvi. 7; the description reminds us of the destruction of Pharaoh and his host in the Red Sea. On ver. 43, cf. xlviii. 9, xlix. 18, 33 f., 1. 12. The suffix in |H3 refers to u her cities; " but the repetition of rjK is not for that reason wrong, as Graf thinks, but is to be explained on the ground that the cities of Babylonia are compared to a barren land; and the idea is properly this: The cities become an arid country of steppes, a land in wdiose cities nobody can dwell. — Ver. 44. With the conquest of Babylon, Bel, the chief deity of the Babylonians (see on 1. 2), is punished; and not only is his prey torn from him, but his fame also, which attracted the nations, is destroyed. Under the prey which Bel has swallowed, and which is to be torn out of his mouth, we must include not merely the sacred vessels which had been deposited in the temple of Belus (Dan. i. 3), and the voluntary offerings presented him (Hitzig), but all the property which Babylon had taken as spoil from the nations; and the nations themselves, with life and property, Babylon has swallowed (see 34 and 1. 17). All this is now to be torn out of his jaws. Bel falls with the fall of Babylon (cf. Isa. xlvi. 1), so that nations no longer come in streams to him, to dedicate their goods and treasures to him. The description ends with the sentence, " the wall of Babylon also is fallen," which Hitzig and Graf wrongly suspect, on the ground that it is insipid. Ewald, on the contrary, perceives in the very same expression a brief and emphatic conclusion; because the famous wall of Babylon, strong in every part, was the main defence of this great city of the world. For explaining this sentence, therefore, it is unnecessary to assume that the walls of Babylon seem to have been regarded as sacred to Bel, as Naiiclsbach is inclined to infer from the names which are said to be given to these walls in an inscription translated by Oppert.1 — Ver. 45 f. Since Babylon will be punished by the Lord with destruction, the people of God are to flee out of it, and to preserve their lives from the fierce anger of Jahwh, which will discharge itself on Babylon. *|K |nn, as in iv. 8, 26, etc.— Ver. 46. Yet they are not to despair when the catastrophe draws near, and all kinds of rumours of war and oppression are abroad. The repetition of HJRDtfn expresses the correlative relation, — this and that report;'cf. Ewald, § 360, c. The sufhx in Vjnx has a neuter sense; the word means " afterwards n (= riNT ^ns? Job xlii. 16). pX2 Dtprn is also to be taken as dependent, grammatically, on fcO*: u and when a deed of violence is committed in the land, one ruler (rises up) against the other." These words
1 Cf. J. Oppert, Expedition en Mesopot. i. p. 227, where, on the strength of an inscription of Assarhaddon, which is read, " Imgur-Bel is its (Babylon's) chief wall, Ninivitti-Bel its rampart" the expressions found in the inscriptions of Nebuchadnezzar before the mention of the walls — viz. "Imgur-Bel" (may Bel - Dagon protect him) and "Ninivitti-Bel" (the abode of Bel) — have been explained by Rawliuson and Oppert as names of the first and second lines of fortification round Babylon.
presuppose not merely a pretty long duration of the war, hut also rebellion and revolution, through which Babylon is to go to ruin. In this sense they are employed by Christ for describing the wars and risings that arc to precede His advent; Matt. wiv. 6, Mark ziii. 7, Luke xxi. 9. — Ver. 47. Therefore, because what has been stated above will happen, or because the events mentioned in ver. 46 are harbingers of the judgment on Babylon, — therefore days are coming when God shall execute judgment on the idols of Babylon, and dry up the land1 (cf, ver. 43), and all her slain ones, i.e. all her inhabitants shall fall down, slain in the midst of her. D*K3 D*DJ n:n pS "Therefore, behold, days are coming," is a formula very frequently found in Jeremiah; ef. vii..'52, xvi. 14, xix. 6, xxiii. 7. etc. — Ver. 48. Heaven and earth, with all that is in them (i.e. the whole world, with its animate and inanimate creature-), break out into rejoicing over the fall of Babylon (cf. Isa. xliv. 23), for Babylon has enslaved and laid waste all the world. The second part of ver. 48, "for the destroyers shall come from the north," is logically connected with ver. 47, to which ver. 48a is to be taken as subordinate, in the sense, "over which heaven and earth rejoice." On ver. 48/>, cf. 1. 3, 9, 41. Both parts of ver. 49 are placed in mutual relation by C3 — D§. These two particles, thus used, signify il as well as," u not only... but also," or " as... so." Ewald, Hitzig, and Graf have quite missed the meaning of both clauses, since they take nSffi] r!?ft as a vocative, and render the whole thus: " Not only must Babylon fall, O ye slain ones of Israel, but slain ones of the whole earth have fallen on the side of Babylon (or through Babylon)." This view of the expression a slain ones of Israel " cannot be established, either from grammatical considerations or from a regard to the meaning of the whole. Not only is there no occasion for a direct address to the slain ones of Israel; but by such a view of the expression, the antithesis indicated by D3 — D3, between u the slain ones of Israel " and " the slain ones of the earth," is thereby destroyed. Viewed grammati- cally, " the slain ones of Israel " can only be the subject dependent on the inf.?hJ?: " the fall of the slain ones of Israel." Kimchi has long ago hit the meaning in the explanation, 5>50? nap ruvn tea D3, « as Babylon was the cause of the slain ones of Israel falling." Similarly Jerome: et quomodo fecit Babylon ut caderent occisi ex Israel. This paraphrase may be vindicated on grammatical grounds, for the inf. constr. with h with or without n\i? is used to express that on which one is engaged, or what one is on the point of doing; cf. Gesenius § 132, 3, Rem. 1. In this meaning,!>a$ stands here without njn: u as Babylon was concerned in making the slain ones of Israel fall; " or better: " Just as Babylon was intent on the fall of slain ones in Israel, so also there fall because of Babylon (prop, dative, for Babylon) slain ones of all the earth;" because there are to be found, in the capital of the empire, people from all quarters of the world, who are slain when Babylon is conquered. The perf. WJ is prophetic, like W^a in ver. 47.
Vers. 50-58. Final summing up of the 'offence and the punishment of Babylon. Ver. 50. " Ye who have escaped the sword, depart, do not stay! remember Jahveh from afar, and let Jerusalem come into your mind. Ver. 51. We were ashamed, because we heard reproach; shame hath covered our face, for strangers have come into the holy places of the house of Jahveh. Ver. 52. Therefore, behold, days are coming, saith Jahveh, when I will take vengeance on her graven images • and through all her land shall the wounded groan. Ver^' Though Babylon ascended to heaven, and fortified the height of her strength, yet from me there shall come destroyers°to her, saith Jahveh. Ver. 54. The noise of a cry [comes] from Babylon, and great destruction from the land of the Chaldeans. Ver. 55. For Jahveh lays waste Babylon, and destroys out of her the great noise; and her waves sound like many waters • a noise of their voice is uttered. Ver. 56. For there comes against her against Babylon, a destroyer, and her heroes are taken; each one of their bows is broken: for Jahveh is a God of retnbutioris, He shall certainly recompense. Ver. 57. And 1 will make drunk her princes and her wise men, her governors and her lieutenant-governors, and her heroes, so that they shall sleep an eternal sleep, and not awake, saith the King, whose name is Jahveh of hosts. Ver. 58. Tims saitli Jahveh of hosts: The broad walls of Babylon shall be utterly destroyed, and her high gates shall bo burned with fire, so that nations toil for nothing, and peoples for tho fire, and thus arc wear
Once more there is addressed to Israel the call to return immediately; cf. vor. 45 and 1. 8. The designation, u those who have escaped from the sword," is occasioned by the mention in ver. 49 of those who are slain: it is not to be explained (with Nagelsbach) from the circumstance that the prophet sees before him the massacre of the Babylonians as something that has already taken place. This view of the matter agrees neither with what precedes nor what follows, where the punishment of Babylon is set forth as yet to come. It is those who have escaped from the sword of Babylon during the exercise of its sway that are meant, not those who remain, spared in the conquest of Babylon. They are to go, not to staud or linger on the road, lest they be overtaken, with others, by the judgment falling upon Babylon; they are also to remember, from afar, Jahveh the faithful covenant God, and Jerusalem, that they may hasten their return. OWJ is a form of the imperative from *pn; it occurs only here, and has probably been chosen instead of W, because this form, in the actual use of language, had gradually lost its full meaning, and become softened down to a mere interjection, while emphasis is here placed on the going. After the call there follows, in ver. 51, the complaint, " We have lived to see the dishonour caused by the desecration of our sanctuary." This complaint does not permit of being taken as an answer or objection on the part of those who are summoned to return, somewhat in this spirit: 11 What is the good of our remembering Jahveh and Jerusalem % Truly we have thence a remembrance only of the deepest shame and dishonour " (Nagelsbach). Such an objection the prophet certainly would have answered with a reproof for the want or weakness of faith. Ewald accordingly takes ver. 51 as containing " a confession which the exiles make in tears, and filled with shame, regarding the previous state of dishonour in which they themselves, as well as the holy place, have been." On this view, those who are exhorted to return encourage themselves by this confession and prayer to zeal in returning; and it would be necessary to supply dicite before ver. 51, and to take ttB>3 as meaning, u We are ashamed because we have heard scoffing, and because enemies have come into the holy places of Jahveh's house." But they might have felt no shame on account of this dishonour that befell them. cna signifies merely to be ashamed in consequence of the frustration of some hope not the shame of repentance felt on doing wrong. Hence, with Calvin and others, we must take the words of ver. 51 as a scruple which the prophet expresses in the name of the people against the summons to remember Jahveh and Jerusalem, that he may remove the objection. The meaning is thus something like the following: " We may say, indeed, that disgrace has been imposed on us, for we have experienced insult and dishonour; but in return for this, Babylon will now be laid waste and destroyed." The plural DWjptan denotes the different holy places of the temple, as in Ps. Lwiii. 36. The answer which settles this objection is introduced, ver. 52, by the formula "Therefore, behold, days are coming," which connects itself with the contents of ver. 51: "Therefore, because we were obliged to listen to scoffing, and barbarians have forced their way into the holy places of the house of our God, — therefore will Jahveh punish Babylon for these crimes." The suffixes in WDS and JWH refer to Babylon. 9>n is used in undefined generality, " slain, pierced through."— Ver. 53. Babylon shall by no means escape punishment Even though it mounted up to heaven (cf. Job xx. 6; there may, at the same time, be an allusion to Isa. xiv. 12, and possibly also to the tower at Babylon), and TOW, "cut off (t*. made inaccessible) the height of its strength," i.e. the height in which its strength consists, its lofty wall of defence (probably an allusion to the lofty walls of Babylon; see on ver. 58), yet destroyers are to come against it from Jahveh.— Ver. 54. The prophet in the spirit sees these destroyers as already come. A cry of anguish proceeds from Babylon, and great destruction; cf. 1. 22, 46, and xlviii. 3. For (ver. 55) Jahveh lays waste Babvlon, and destroys out of her 5*73 fcp, properly « the loud voice," i.e. the loud noise and bustle of the city. « Their waves," i.e. the surging masses of the conquering army, roar like many or great
. there Bounds) "the noise of their voice," i.e. of the roaring of their waves. u For there comes on Babylon a destroyer, so that hei heroes are made prisoners, and her bows (by synecdoche for weapons) broken in pier The Piel "Win has here an intransitive sense, u to break or Bhiver into pieces," like riFIB, I<a. xlviii. 8, Ix. 11. This must take place, for Jahveh is a CJod of retribution; ef. ver. 24. Tins retribution lie will execute in such a way as to make the princes, wise men, rulers, and heroes of Babylon sink down into an eternal sleep, by presenting to them the cup of wrath. On WrJ'l and 'til W^., cf. ver. i)9. On the enumeration of the different classes of leaders and supporters of the state, cf. ver. 23 and 1. 35; and on the designation of Jahveh as King, xlviii. 15, with the remark there made. — Ver. 58. And not only are the defenders of the city to fall, but the strong ramparts also, the broad walls and the lofty towers, are to be destroyed. The adjective '"9?")^ is joined in the singular with the plural rrifth, because the complex notion of the walls of Babylon, denoted by the latter word, is viewed as a unity; cf. Ewald, § 318. ">"?y, in Ilithpael, means u to be made bare," i.e. to be destroyed down to the ground; the inf. abs. Pilel is added to intensify the expression. Regarding the height and breadth and the extent of the walls of Babylon, cf. the collection of notices by the old writers in Duncker's Gesch. des Alt. i. S. 85G ff. According to Herodotus (i. 178 f.), they were fifty ells [" royal cubits," or nearly 85 feet] thick, and 200 ells [337^ feet] high; Ctesias assigns them a height of 300 feet, Strabo that of 50 ells [cubits, or 75 feet], and a breadth of 32 feet. On this Duncker remarks': u The height and breadth which Herodotus gives to the walls are no doubt exaggerated. Since the wall of Media, the first line of defence for the country, had a height of 100 feet and a breadth of 20 feet, and since Xenophon saw in Nineveh walls 150 feet in height, we shall be able with some decree of certainty to assume, in accordance with the statement of Pliny (vi. 26), that the wall of Babylon must have had a height of 200 feet above the ditch, and a proportionate breadth of from 30 to 40 feet. This breadth would be sufficient to permit of teams of four being driven along the rampart, between the battlements, as Herodotus and Strabo inform us, without touching, just as the rampart on the walls of Nineveh is said to have afforded room for three chariots."1 The gates leading into the city were, according to Herodotus, Z.c, provided with beautifully ornamented gateways; the posts, the two leaves of the gates, and the thresholds, were of bronze. The prophecy concludes, ver. 586, with some words from Hab. ii. 13, which are to be verified by the destruction of Babylon, viz. that the nations which have built Babylon, and made it great, have laboured in vain, and only wearied themselves. Habakkuk probably does not give this truth as a quotation from an older prophet, but rather declares it as an ordinance of God, that those who build cities with blood, and strongholds with unrighteousness, make nations toil to supply food for fire. Jeremiah has made use of the passage as a suitable conclusion to his prophecy, but made some unimportant alterations; for he has transposed the words Bfc H3 and p'") *5f, and changed *SJP into *BJM, that he may conclude his address with greater emphasis. For, according to the arrangement here, D*Ot6l 0ITH3 still depends on U^l, and *DJN indicates the result of this toil for the enslaved nations, — they only weary themselves thereby. The genuineness of this reading is put beyond a doubt by the repetition of *BJW at the close of the epilogue in ver. 64. What Habakkuk said generally of the undertakings
1 For details as to the number of the walls, and statistics regarding them, see Duncker, S. 858, Anm. 3, who is inclined to understand the notice of Berosus regarding a triple wall as meaning that the walls of the river are counted as the second, and those round the royal fortress as the third line of circumvallation. J. Oppert, Exped. en M&op. i. p. 220 ff., has given a thorough discussion of this question. By carefully comparing the accounts of the ancient writers regarding the walls of Babylon, and those given in the inscriptions, lately discovered and deciphered, found on the buildings of Sennacherib and Nebuchadnezzar, with the vast extent of the long mounds of rubbish on the places where the ruins are met with, he has obtained this result, — that the city was surrounded by a strong double wall with deep ditches, an outer and an inner enceinte, and that the outer or large wall enclosed a space of 513 square kilometres, i.e. a piece of ground as large as the department of the Seine, fifteen times the extent of the city of Paris in the year 1859, seven times that of the same city in 1860, while the second or inner wall enclosed an area of 290 square kilometres, much larger than the space occupied by London.
of the Chaldeans, Jeremiah applied specialty to the fall of the citj o{ Babylon, because it was to exhibit its fulfilment most plainly in that event.
the prophet commanded Seraiah the son of Nerijah, the son of Maaseiah, when he went with Zedekiah the king of Judah to Babylon, in the fourth year of his reign. Now Seraiah was 'quartermaster-general' ' (Ger. ReuemarscJiall)? Seraiah the son of Nerijah was, no doubt, a brother of Baruch the son of N tijah; cf. xxxii. 12. ftrWD *fo does not mean k> a peaceful prince" (Luther), [w< a quiet prince," English Version], but '•prince of the resting-place'1 (cf. Num. x. 33), i.e. the king's a quartermaster-general.'1 What Jeremiah commanded Seraiah, or charged him with, does not follow till ver. 61; for the word. of ver. 60, u And Jeremiah wrote in a book all the evil that was to come on Babylon, [namely] all these words which are written against Babylon" (in the preceding address, chap. 1. and li.), form a parenthetic remark, inserted for the purpose of explaining the charge that follows. This remark is attached to the circumstantial clause at the end of ver. 5(.>, after which "the word which he commanded" is not resumed till ver. 61, with the words, "and Jeremiah spalv to Seraiah;" and the ehanre itself is given in vers. 61^-G1: u When thou comest to Babylon, then see to it, and read all these words, and say, O Jahveh, Thou hast spoken against this place, to destroy it, so that there shall be no inhabitant in it, neither man nor beast, but it shall be eternal desolations. And it shall be, when thou hast finished reading this book, that thou shalt bind a stone to it, and cast it into the midst of the Euphrates (ver. 64), and say, Thus shall Babylon sink, and shall not rise again, because of the evil that I bring upon her; and they shall be weary."
baa 1»ba does not mean, "when thou shalt have got near Babylon, so that thou beholdest the city lying in its full extent before thee" (Hitzig), but, according to the simple tenor of the words, " when thou shalt have come into the city." The former interpretation is based on the erroneous supposition that Seraiah had not been able to read the prophecy in the city, from feal* of being called to account for this by the Babylonians. But it is nowhere stated that he was to read it publicly to the Babylonians themselves in an assembly of the people expressly convened for this purpose, but merely that he is to read it, and afterwards throw the book into the Euphrates. The reading was not intended to warn the Babylonians of the destruction threatened them, but was merely to be a proclamation of the word of the Lord against Babylon, on the very spot, for the purpose of connecting with it the symbolic action mentioned in ver. 63 f. fWJI does not belong to 1N3? (a when thou comest to Babylon, and seest"), but introduces the apodosis, "then see to it, and read," i.e. keep it in your eye, in your mind, that you read (cf. Gen. xx. 10); not, "seek a good opportunity for reading" (Ewald). At the same time. Seraiah ifl to cry to God that He has said He will bring this evil on Babylon, i.e. as it were to remind God that the words of the prophecy are His own words, which He has to fulfil. On the contents of ver. 62, cf. 1. 3, li. 26. After the reading is finished, he is to bind the book to a stone, by means of which to sink it in the Euphrates, uttering the words explanatory of this action, "Thus shall Babylon sink," etc. This was to be done, not for the purpose of destroying the book (which certainly took place, but was not the object for which it was sunk), but in order to symbolize the fulfilment of the prophecy against Babylon. The attachment of the stone was not a precautionary measure to prevent the writing from being picked up somewhere, and thus bringing the writer or the people of the caravan into trouble (Hitzig), but was merely intended to make sure that the book would sink down into the depths of the Euphrates, and render it impossible that it should rise again to the surface, thus indicating by symbol that Babylon would not rise again. The words which Seraiah is to speak on throwing the book into the Euphrates, contain, in nuce, the substance of the prophecy. The prophet makea this still more plain, 1-v oondading the wordi he is likewise to utter with •K! IS &e I** word of the prophecy. Luther has here well rendered *#, "to wean," by "succamb" («r%«n). The Babylonians form the subject of W&1 The symbolic meaning of this act is clear; and from it, also, the meaning of the whole charge to the prophet is not difficult to perceive. TJ ling o( the prophecy through Seruiah, with the command to read it there, at the same time looking up to God, ami then to sink it in the Euphrates, was not intended as a testimony to the inhabitants of Babylon of the certainty of their destruction, but was meant to be a substantial proof for Israel that God the
Lord would, without fail, fulfil His word regarding the seventy
ITS1 duration of Babylon's supremacy, and the fall of this great kingdom which was to ensue. This testimony received still greater significance from the circumstances under which it was given. The journey of King Zedekiah to Babylon was, at least in regard to its official purpose, an act of homage shown by Zedekiah to Nebuchadnezzar, as the vassal of the king of
Babylon. This fact, which was deeply humiliating for Judah, was made use of by Jeremiah, in the name of the Lord, for the purpose of announcing and transmitting to Babylon, the city that ruled the world, the decree which Jahveh, the God of
Israel, as King of heaven and earth, had formed concerning the proud city, and which He would execute in His own time,
1 Mistaking the meaning of the repetition of the word ygft, Movers, Hitzig, and Graf have thereon based various untenable conjectures. Movers infers from the circumstance that the whole epilogue is spurious; llitzi" and Graf conclude from it that the closing words, " Thus far are the words of Jeremiah," originally came after ver. 58, and that the epilogue, because it does not at all admit of being separated from the ereat oracle against Babylon, originally preceded the oracle beginning 1. 1, but was afterwards placed at the end; moreover, that the transposer cut off from ver. 58 the concluding remark, « Thus far/' etc., and put it at the end of the epilogue (ver. 64), but, at the same time, also transferred sfcjn, in order to show that the words, i.e. the prophecies of Jeremiah, strictly' speaking, extend only thus far. This intimation is, indeed, quite superfluous, for it never could occur to the mind of any intelligent reader that the epilogue, vers. 59-64, was an integral portion of the prophecy itself. And there would be no meaning in placing the epilogue before 1. 1.
that He might confirm the hope of the godly ones among His people in the deliverance of Israel from Babylon.
The statement, " Thus far are the words of Jeremiah," is an addition made by the editor of the prophecies. From these words, it follows that chap. lii. does not belong to these prophecies, but forms a historical appendix to them.
Finally, if any question be asked regarding the fulfilment of the prophecy against Babylon, we must keep in mind these two points: 1. The prophecy, as is shown both by its title and its contents, is not merely directed against the city of Babylon, but also against the land of the Chaldeans. It therefore proclaims generally the devastation and destruction of the Chaldean kingdom, or the fall of the Babylonian empire; and the capture and destruction of Babylon, the capital, receive special prominence only in so far as the world-wide rule of Babylon fell with the capital, and the supremacy of the Chaldeans over the nations came to an end. 2. In addition to this historical side, the prophecy has an ideal background, which certainly is never very prominent, but nevertheless is always more or less to be discovered. Here Babylon, as the then mistress of the world, is the representative of the God-opposing influences on the earth, which always attempt to suppress and destroy the kingdom of God. The fulfilment of the historical side of this prophecy began with the capture of Babylon by the united forces of the Medes and Persians under the leadership of Cyrus, and with the dissolution of the Chaldean empire, brought about throuMi that event. By this means, too, the people of Israel were delivered from the Babylonish captivity, while Cyrus gave them permission to return to their native land and rebuild the temple of the Lord in Jerusalem; 2 Chron. xxxvi. 22 f., Ezra i. 1 ff. But Babylon was not destroyed when thus taken, and according to Herodotus, iii. 150, even the walls of the city remained uninjured, while, according to a notice of Berosus in Josephus, contri A p. i. 10, Cyrus is said to have given orders for the pulling down of the outer wall. Cyrus appointed Babylop, after Susa and Ecbatana, the third city in the kingdom, and the winter residence of the Persian kings (according to Xenophon, Cyrop. viii. G. 22). Darius Hystaspes, who was obliged to take the city a second time, in consequence in the year 518 B.C., was the first who caused the:>> be lowered in height; these were diminished to 50 ells "al cubits— about et], and the gates were torn away
(Herodotus, iii. 158 f.). \ spoiled the city of the golden intended not merely to rebuild the sanctuary of Belus, but also to make the city the capital of his empire; but lie was prevented 1 y his early death from carrying out this plan. The decay of Babylon properly began when Seleucus Nicator built Seleucia, on the Tigris, only 300 stadia distant. « Babylon? says Pliny,' vi. 30, "ad solitudinem re hit, exhausta vicinitate SeleucicB." And Strabo (born 60 B.C.) says that, even in his time, the city was a complete wilderness, to which he applies the utterance of a poet: eprjfita fAeyakf) iarlu i) fieydXij ttcX^ (Xvi. 1. 5). This decay was accelerated under the rule of the Parthians, so that, within a short time, only a small space within the walls was inhabited, while the rest was used as fields (Diodorus Siculus, ii 9; Curtius, v. 4. 27). According to the statements of Jerome and Theodore:, there were still living at Babylon, centuries afterwards, a pretty considerable number of Jews; but Jerome (ad Jerem. 51) was informed by a Persian monk that these ruins stood in the midst of a hunting district of the Persian kings. The notices of later writers, especially of modern travellers, have been collected by Eitter, Erdkunde, xi. S. 865 f.; and the latest investigations among the ruins are described in his Expedition scient. en Mcsopotamie, i. pp. 135-254 (Paris 1863).1 John the evangelist has taken the ideal elements of this prophecy into his apocalyptic description of the great city of Babylon (Rev. xvi. ff.), whose fall is not to begin till the kingdom of God is completed in glory through the return of our Lord.
CHAP. LII. — HISTORICAL ACCOUNT OF THE CAPTURE AND DESTRUCTION OF JERUSALEM, THE FATE OF ZEDEKIAH AND THE PEOPLE, AND THE LIBERATION OF JEHOIACUIN FROM IMPRISONMENT.
By the closing formula, li. 64, the contents of chap. lii. are separated from, and marked as an appendix to, the prophecies of Jeremiah; yet nothing is said regarding the author of this chapter. However, if we keep in mind the nature of its contents, then, from the very fact that it gives an account of the liberation of King Jehoiachin from prison, and of his elevation to royal honours, it necessarily follows that it cannot have been composed by Jeremiah, because the prophet can scarcely have lived till this occurred, which was less than 561 B.C. It must further be considered that the contents of this chapter also agree, almost word for word, with 2 Kings xxiv. 18-25, 30; moreover, the introductory notice regarding Zedekiah's as sion of the throne, his age, and the character of his rule, given vers. 1-3, was unnecessary for the object of this appendix. The same holds true of the notice regarding the liberation of Jehoiachin from prison, at the close, vera. »1 -34, which does not seem to stand in any close and intimate connection with the history of the destruction of Jerusalem and the fate of X kiah, while both of these events are closely connected with the plan and aim of the Books of Kings, and are written quite in their spirit. On these grounds, most expositors, both ancient and modern, assume that this historical appendix to the prophecies of Jeremiah has been derived from the Second Book of Kings. But weighty reasons oppose this assumption. (1.) The very fact that the name of the king. of Babylon is throughout written Nebuchadrezzar makes it unlikely that the narrative was derived from 2 Kings xxiv. 18 ff., because the name is there constantly written Nebuchadnezzar, — a form which also occurs in Jeremiah, though not often (see vol. i.p. 397, note). (2.) This chapter contains notices which are not found in 2 Kings xxiv. and xxv. Thus, it is stated, in ver. 10, that Nebuchadrezzar also caused all the princes of J udah to be executed at
Riblab, and King Zedekiah, who had been carried to Babylon, to be pat in prison till his death; in vers. 19- 23 we find a whole seri special remarks as to the vessels of the temple and the ornaments of the brazen pillars, — observations which are not met with either in 2 Kings xxv., or in the description of the building of the temple, 1 Kings \ii. We further find, in vers.. a notice regarding three deportations of the people, giving the numbers, not roundly, but precisely, as they are nowhere else given in the historical hooks of the ()M Testament. Were this statement the only additional detail given by this chapter, as compared with 2 Kings XXV., one might perhaps suppose that it was an interpolation from another source, added to the rest of the account that has been derived from 2 Kings xxiv. ami xxv.; but this opinion, which even in itself is not very probable, is excluded by the other additions found in ver. 1<) and in 19—23. If the author of this chapter had been able to derive, and had actually derived, these additional particulars from a historical source, treating of the later times of the kingdom of Judali, which has not come down to us, and which contained more than our canonical books of Kings and Chronicles, he would no doubt have also found there the account of the three deportations, and taken it from that source. We must therefore assume that this chapter, and 2 Kings xxiv. 18 on to xxv. 30, have both a common origin, in which the fall of the kingdom of Judah was more fully described than in the historical books of the canon; in this way, the remarkable coincidence, almost word for word, betwene the narrative portions which are common to the two extracts, is accounted for quite as easily as the differences that have just been mentioned. From a critical examination of the state of both texts now before us, no certain conclusions can be drawn re^ardinc* their mutual relation. The differences of this kind arise partly from errors and omissions by later copyists, partly also from the circumstance that the epitomizers have not throughout kept rigorously to the words of their source. Regarding the author of the original written document, we cannot even make any supposition that could pretend to anything like probability. Baruch, as the editor of the collection of Jeremiah's prophecies, may have made the extract from it which we find in this chapter. We have already, in substance, given the exposition while treating of 2 Kings xxiv. 18 ff., so that we may here content ourselves with briefly putting together the deviations of this text from the other, and explaining its peculiarities.
Vers. 1-11. Fate of King Zedekiah at the taking of Jerusalem; cf. 2 Kings xxiv. 18, xxv. 7, and Jer. xxxix. 1-7. The statements regarding Zedekiah's ascension and his government, vers# i_3? agree word for word with 2 Kings xxiv. 18-20, even to the variation fcrfffy ver. 3, for frfen (Kings). The length of the siege of Jerusalem, vers. 4- 7a, and the flight, capture, and condemnation of King Zedekiah and the princes of Judah, vers. 75-11, not only agrees with 2 Kings xxv. 1-7, but also with Jer. xxxix. 1-7, where it is merely the forcible entrance into the city by the Chaldeans that receives special detail; see on xxxix. 3. The variation urw, ver. 4, instead of ]?*) (2 Kings xxv. 1), does not affect the sense. As to the account given of the flight, capture, and condemnation of the king, both chap. xxxix. and 2 Kings xxv. omit the notices given in ver. 10, "and also all the princes of Judah he caused to be slain (i.e. executed) at Eiblah," and in ver. 11, "and he put him in the prison-house till the day of his death." rrnpQrrjv:i has been rendered oUla fivXcovos by the LXX.; on this fact Hitzig bases the opinion that the Hebrew words signify " the house of punishment," or " the house of correction," in which Zedekiah was obliged to turn the mill like other culprits, and as Samson was once obliged to do (Judg. xvi. 21). But this meaning of the words cannot be substantiated, ttps means " oversight, mustering, or visitation (Heimsuclmng), or vengeance," e.g. Isa. x. 3, but not punishment (Strafe), and the plural, "watches" (Ezek. ix. 1) and "custody," Ezek. xliv. 11; hence the expression used here signifies "the house of custody," or " the house of the watches." The translation of the LXX. can decide nothing against this, because their interpretation is based upon traditions which are themselves unfounded. Regarding this, Ewald well remarks (History of the People of Israel, iii. p. 748 of 2d ed.): "That Zedekiah must have laboured at the mill, as is mentioned in later chronicles (see Aug. Mai, Scriptorwn veterum nova collectio, t. i. P. 2, p. 6; cf. Chron. Sam. chap, xlv.), is probably a mere inference from Lam. v. 13."
Vert. 12-23, The destruction of Jerusalem and of the temple, and the carrying away of the people, which ere only very Bummarily stated in chap, xxxix. 8-10, are here related in complete accordance with the account given in - Kings xxv.
8-17. The deviations for the most part originated through the freedom exercised by the epitomizer in his work, or only when mistakes were made by later copyists. The text before us has some amplifications (especially the notices regarding the ornaments of the brazen pillars, ver. 23) which are found nowhere else in the Old Testament. The difference in date between ver. 12 ("on the tenth of the month") and the passage in Kings (" on the seventh of the month") has arisen through one number having been mistaken for another in copying; it cannot now be decided which is correct; see on 2 Kings xxv. 18. As to Nebuzaradan, see on xxxix. 13. Instead of ^E? "7EV is found "TO in 2 Kings xxv. 8, which certainly is a simpler reading, but one having less appearance of being the original. The only strange point is the want of the relative "^'N in plain prose before "1EV, which is probably to be pointed TOk D^pB^TSj instead of DjWnj (Kings), is a pregnant expression for u he came into Jerusalem." — Ver. 14. From the expression nioin~?3~nx7 as given in ver. 14, "all" is omitted in Kings, as being not indispensable for the meaning. — Ver. 15. The first words, "And of the poor of the people," are wanting in Kings, and have been brought here, through an error on the part of the copyist, from the beginning of the next verse; for u the poor of the people " are first treated of in ver. 16, where it is stated that Nebuzaradan left them in the land, while ver. 15 treats of those who were carried away to Babylon. The word |ioxn, instead of |tonn (Kings), seems to have originated simply through the exchange of N for n, and to mean, like the other, the multitude of people. Hitzig and Graf are of opinion that p£N here, as in Prov. viii. 30, means workmaster or artificer, and that PENH denotes the same persons (collectively) who are designated Knnn "upsrvi in xxiv. 1, xxix. 2, and 2 Kings xxiv. 14. But this view is opposed by the parallel passage, xxxix. 9, where the whole of this verse occurs, and D^KPan Dyn in1 stands instead of "W jiBKn. " The rest of the people of Jerusalem " are divided, by n&o — nw, into those who went over to the Chaldeans, and the rest of the people who were taken prisoners by the Chaldeans at the capture of the city. The statement that both of these two classes of the population of Jerusalem were carried away to Babylon is so far limited by the further declaration, in ver. 16, that Nebuzaradan did not carry away every one, without exception, but let a portion of the humbler inhabitants of the country, who had no property, remain in the land, as vinedressers and husbandmen, that they might till the land. Instead of ft?? ni-HE there occurs in Kings pan n^D, and in Jer. xxxix/ 10, more distinctly, D"»Vnn tt?n |0, " some of the people, the humbler ones," who had no property of their own. nh, pi. rifsn, is an abstract noun, "poverty;" the singular is used collectively, hence the plural is here used to supply the deficiency. For D%3J*, from 3£, to plough, there is found instead, in 2 Kings xxv. 12, Kethib Ml, from 3\a, with the same meanin <r. Vers. 17-23. The carrying away of the vessels of the temple is more fully stated than in 2 Kings xxv. 13-17. The large brazen articles, the two pillars at the porch (cf. 1 Kings vii. 15 ff.), the bases (1 Kings vii. 27 ff.), and the brazen sea (1 Kings vii. 23 ff.), which were too vast in their proportions to be easily carried away to Babylon, were broken to pieces by the Chaldeans, who carried off the brass of which they were made. n^T^K is more correct than rTCaiPK (Kings), and " all their brass" is more precise than simply " their brass" (Kings). In the enumeration of the smaller brazen vessels used for the temple service, ver. 18, there is omitted, in 2 Kings, rtp^JDiTTM, " and the bowls" (used in sacrifice); this omission is perhaps due merely to an error in transcription. The enumeration of the gold and silver vessels in ver. 19 has been much more abbreviated in 2 Kings xxv. 15, where only "the fire-pans and the bowls" are mentioned, while in the text here, besides these there are named " the basons," then " the pots (Eng. vers, caldrons), and the candlesticks, and the pans (Eng. vers, spoons), and the cups." For particulars regarding these different vessels, see on 1 Kings vii. 40, 45, 50. In ver. 20, reference is made to the fact that the mass of metal in the vessels that were carried away was without weight. The same is stated in 2 Kings xxv. 16, where, however, there is no mention of the twelve brazen bulls; while in the text of Jeremiah, rinn "iBfoj
•- is faulty, and we must read Instead, nfobtsm iwin n#K. The assertion of Graf, in his commentary on this verse, and of Thenius on 2 Kings x\v. 16, — that the notice regarding tin* twelve brazen bulls is incorrect, because these were then no longer in Jerusalem (xxvii. 1(.M, but had previously been removed by Ahaz from under the brazen sea for Tiglath-pileser, — we have already, under 2 Kings xvi. 17, shown to be erroneous. The apposition of n?Kjl D'?zn-?3 to Dnirn^ explains the reference of the suffix. In vers. 21 23, the narrator, in order to call attention to the amount of art exhibited on the vessels troyed by the Chaldeans, oaves a brief description of the brazen pillars with their capitals. This description is much shortened in 2 Kings xxv. 17, and contains notices completing that which is given of these works of art in 1 Kinirs vii. For details, see the passage referred to.