Online Resource Library
Commentary Index | Return to PrayerRequest.com | DownloadLange Commentary - Isaiah 13:14 - 13:22
(Show All Books | Show All Chapters)
This Chapter Verse Commentaries:
Isa_13:14 to Isa_14:23
1. THE JUDGMENT ON THE CITY AND STATE OF BABYLON
Isa_13:14-22
And as a sheep that no man taketh up:
They shall every man turn to his own people,
And flee every one into his own land.
15 Every one that is found shall be thrust through;
And every one that Isaiah 12 joined unto them shall fall by the sword
16 Their children also shall be dashed to pieces before their eyes;
Their houses shall be spoiled and their wives ravished.
17 Behold, I will stir up the Medes against them,
Which shall not regard silver;
And as for gold, they shall not delight in it.
18 Their bows also shall dash the young men to pieces;
And they shall have no pity on the fruit of the womb;
Their eye shall not spare children,
19 And Babylon, the glory of kingdoms,
The beauty of the Chaldees’ excellency,
Shall be as when God overthrew Sodom and Gomorrah.
20 It shall never be inhabited,
Neither shall it be dwelt in from generation to generation:
Neither shall the Arabian pitch tent there;
Neither shall the shepherds make their fold there.
21 But wild beasts of the desert shall lie there;
And their houses shall be full of doleful creatures;
And owls shall dwell there,
And satyrs shall dance there.
22 And the wild beasts of the islands shall cry in their desolate houses,
And dragons in their pleasant palaces:
And her time is near to come,
And her days shall not be prolonged.
On Isa_13:15. ðîöà comp. Isa_22:3; Isa_37:4. ã÷ø only here in Isaiah. ðñôä from ñôä “to snatch, seize.”— øèùׁ that occurs only in Piel and Pual, is used exclusively of dashing to pieces human bodies: Hos_10:14; Hos_14:1; Nah_3:10; 2Ki_8:12; in Isa. the word occurs only here and Isa_13:18. ùָׁñַí (kindred to ùׁùׂä , ùׁñä , Isa_10:13; Isa_17:14; Isa_42:22) only here in Isa. Comp. Zec_14:2.—Niph. ðùׁâì (Kal. Deu_28:30; Pual Jer_3:2) occurs only here and Zechariah 14.
On Isa_13:19. öáé comp. on Isa_4:2, where also Isaiah has âàåï and úôàøú though not in a genitive relation, a combination that occurs in no other place.— ëîäôëú comp. on Isa_1:7. The original passage is Deu_29:22. The substantive like infinitives has retained the verbal force.
On Isa_13:20. The intransitive use of éùׁá and ùׁëï (= “to be a habitation”) occurs first in Joel 4:20. It does not occur later in Isaiah; whereas in Jeremiah it is frequent (Jer_17:6; Jer_17:25; Jer_30:18; Jer_46:26; Jer_50:13; Jer_50:39): in Eze_29:11 also, and in Zec_2:8; Zec_9:5. The expression òã ãåø åãåø , occurs only here in Isaiah. ãּåֹø occurs in various connections, Isa_34:10; Isa_34:17; Isa_51:8; Isa_58:12; Isa_60:15; Isa_61:4.— òֲøָáִé . So still Jer_3:2; comp. Jer_25:24, otherwise in later books òַøְáִé 2Ch_21:16; 2Ch_22:1; Neh_2:19; Neh_4:1; Neh_6:1. Because of the following øֹòִéí , this cannot be understood to mean nomadic shepherds in general. But the word signifies the Arabian proper, because in fact “Babylon lay near enough to Arabia for Arabians proper to come thither with their flocks” (Gesenius).— éַäֵì for éְàַäֵì , like îַìְּôֵðåּ Job_35:11, for îְàַìְּôֵðåּ . The form occurs only here The verb àָäַì (Kal. Gen_13:12; Gen_13:18) is denominativum.— äִøְáִּéõ is to make øֵáֶõ : thus it is direct causative. Hiph. (Isa_54:11).
On Isa_13:21. öִéִּéí (from öִé unused, from which öִéָּä terra arida) are dwellers in the desert; whether men or beasts is undetermined. Yet analogy favors the latter; for in what follows only beasts are mentioned. The word occurs in Isaiah again Isa_23:13; Isa_34:14; comp. Jer_50:39. Ewald, (Lehrb. § 146, g. Anm.) derives öééí , and àééí with the meaning “criers, howlers,” from Arabic roots, as it seems to me, without necessity.— àçéí ἅðÜî ëåã . The LXX., evidently following a kindred sound, translate êáὶ ðëçóèÞóïíôáé ïἰêßáé ἤ÷ïõ . But the parallelism demands rather some species of beast. Jerome translates dracones. Aurivillius proposed first ulula, “owls,” “horn owls.”— áַּú éַòֲðָä (Lev_11:16; Deu_14:15) is “the ostrich.” The masculine form éְòֵðִéí found only Lam_4:3. According to some, the name means “the mourning daughter of the desert,” (Meier, Wurzelw. p. 49); according to others, the word is related to the Syr. jaeno, “greedy, ravenous.” The feminine designation has essentially a poetic reason, comp. áַּú âְּãåּã Mic. 4:14 with áְּðֵé âְּãåּã 2Ch_25:13. áַּúÎàֲùׁåּøִéí , áַּúÎòַéִï (Eze_27:6). The word occurs in Isaiah again Isa_34:13; Isa_43:20; comp. Jer_50:39; Mic_1:8; Job_30:20.— ùּׂòéøéí are hirsuti, pilosi, “goats,” i.e., goat-shaped demons.— øִ÷ֵּã Piel only here in Isaiah; comp. Job_21:11; Joe_2:5; Nah_3:2.
Isa_13:22 àִéִּéá are “jackals.” The singular àִé seems abbreviated from àֱåִé from an unused àָåָä , ululavit. In Arabic the jackal still is called ibn-awa. The word is found only here and Isa_34:14, and Jer_50:39.— àìîðåú only here for àøîðåú (perhaps with reference to their widowhood). Comp. Isa_23:13; Isa_25:2; Isa_32:14; Isa_34:13.— úַּðִּéí are also “jackals” (comp. Gesen. Thesaur. p. 39, 1457; 1511). The word in Isaiah again Isa_34:13; Isa_35:7; Isa_43:20.
2. And it shall be—ravished.
Isa_13:14-16. It is said that rats forsake a vessel that is going to be shipwrecked. When ruin impends over a community, whoever is not bound to it by ties of piety or of possession flees out of it. Thus first of all the foreigners flee. The crowd of such in Babylon will scatter like scared gazelles, like a herd panic-stricken. Babylon was the world’s capital, and consequently a resort for people of all nations. All these, therefore, will seek safety in flight. The words: “every man—own land” are found word for word in Jer_50:16 (comp. Jer_46:16; Jer_51:9; Jer_51:44). A comparison with the context proves that these words are original with Isaiah. With Isaiah the thought is the natural consequence of the preceding image of the frightened gazelles and sheep. In Jeremiah we read: “Cut off the sower from Babylon, and him that handleth the sickle in the time of harvest.” To these words the thought: “they shall turn every one to his people,” would be joined on without natural connection, did not the inserted: “for fear of the oppressing sword,” (artfully) bridge over the gap.
3. Behold, I will stir up—not spare children.
Isa_13:17-18. The Prophet proceeds artistically from the general to the particular. First he describes quite in general the vast, I might say the cosmical, apparatus of war that the Lord sets in motion. To Isa_13:14 the earth in general seems to be the objective point of this military expedition. And it is, too, only not all at once. For, from the description immediately following, taken with the totality of eschatological imagery that prophecy offers, it appears that that general prophecy is realized only by degrees. From Isa_13:14 on we notice that a great centre of the world-power is the object of the execution. At Isa_13:17 we are made aware who are to be the executors, but still are in ignorance against whom they are to turn. Not till Isa_13:19 is Babylon named. Of course the superscription, Isa_13:1, is not to be urged against this statement of the order of thought.
The Medes are first named Gen_10:2; but after that the present is the next mention; afterwards Isa_21:2; Jer_25:25; Jer_51:11; Jer_51:28; 2Ki_17:6; 2Ki_18:11. Not till the books of Daniel and Ezra are they mentioned often. In Gen_10:2 they are named as descendants of Japheth. This corresponds accurately with their Arian derivation. Herodotus (Gen 7:62), who unhistorically derives the name Ìῆäïé from Medea, says that from ancient times they were named generally Arians. Medea was bounded on the East by Parthia and Hyrcania, on the South by Susiana and Persis, on the West by Armenia and Assyria, and on the North by the Caspian Sea. Comp. Lassen and Spiegel,Keilinschriften;Arnold in Herzog’sReal-Encycl. IX. 231 sq. It must be particularly noted here that Isaiah makes the Medes and not the Persians the executors of judgment on Babylon. Jeremiah also, who relies on Isaiah’s prophecies against Babylon, does this (Jer_51:11; Jer_51:28). In my work: “The Prophet Jeremiah and Babylon” I have pointed out what a strong proof lies in this fact against the view that the prophecies of Isaiah and Jeremiah against Babylon were composed during the exile. Verily, in the time of the exile, and after the event, no one forging a prophecy against Babylon that would pretend to credibility, would have named the Medes as its destroyer. Any forger must have named the Persians. But if, about the time when the Medes in a mighty uprising freed themselves from the bondage of five centuries to the Assyrians, the Prophet of Jehovah sees in this nation instantly the future conquerors of Babylon, there is a prophetic look which, justified by the present, loses none of its correctness, because, in fact, not the Medes alone, but the Medo-Persians, accomplished the deed that was predicted. When Isa_21:2 names the Elamites along with the Medes, it does not militate against what has just been said. For the Elamites are not identical with the Persians. See on Isa_21:2. And when, too, in Greek writers, the Persians often appear under the name “Medes” (comp. ðüëåìïò ìçäéêüò , óôñÜôåõìá ìçäéêüí , ìçäßæåéí , Vitringain loc.), still it does not happen exclusively, but so that the Persians are named along with them, and for a special reason, viz., because the Medes were recognized as the ἀñ÷çãÝôáé by the Greeks. In short, with the Greeks that designation proceeds from exact knowledge. In Isaiah and Jeremiah, the way in which the Medes are mentioned makes the impression that of the Persians they knew nothing, and of the Medes not much.
By saying that the Medes regard not silver and gold, the Prophet would intimate that they are impelled by higher motives than common love of booty. What those higher motives may be, he does not say. They might have their reason in a thirst for revenge (Delitzsch); but they might also have their source in an impulse to fulfil some mission of which they were unconscious. At all events, it is strange that Jer_51:11; Jer_51:28 sq., where he mentions the Medes, gives prominence both times to this thought. For he says there: “The Lord hath raised up ( äֵòִéø as in our ver. îֵòéø ) the spirits of the kings of the Medes; for his device is against Babylon to destroy it; because it is the vengeance of the Lord, the vengeance of His temple.” And thus, too, Jer_51:29 : “for every purpose of the Lord shall be performed against Babylon.” Bows shall dash the young men to pieces (Isa_13:18)!—An extraordinary expression. One might suppose that øèùׁ means here simply to cast down, to strike to the ground, were it not (comp. on Isa_13:16 Text. and Gram.) that Piel and Pual of øèùׁ are constantly used of dashing to pieces human bodies. But in view of this, and moreover that bows and not the bowmen are named, one must understand an effect of crowds is meant, and an indirect dashing to pieces by precipitating those struck, say from the walls. Besides the Medes, Elamites, Persians, and later the Parthians, were celebrated in all antiquity as bowmen. Comp. Isa_22:6; Jer_49:35; Herod. 7, 61 sq; Cyrop. II. 1, 6 sq. The fruit of the womb being named along with children, makes it likely that children unborn are meant. Comp. 2Ki_8:12; 2Ki_15:16; Hos_14:1; Amo_1:13. Their eye shall not spare.—By synecdoche the eye that expresses pity is taken for the efficient source. The expression is from the Pentateuch (Gen_45:20; Deu_7:16; Deu_19:13; Deu_19:21 and often; Ezr_5:11 and often).
4. And Babylon—not be prolonged.
Isa_13:19-22. The entire first half of Isa_13:20 occurs as a quotation, Jer_50:39. Babylon shall be uninhabited forever. It shall not even be used as a temporary stopping place. Not even the nomadic Arabian, nor a wandering shepherd of another race, shall camp there and rest his flocks. Goats = “satyrs.” Perhaps here is the source of that representation of the devil as a being furnished with horns and goat’s feet. Comp. Geseniusin loc.
When the Prophet at the last declares the judgment on Babylon to be near, that is only in consequence of his having said generally (Isa_13:6; Isa_13:9) that the day of the Lord is at hand. Moreover the notion “near” is a relative one. Here also from the Prophetic view-point that is represented as near, which, according to common human reckoning, is still far off. As regards the fulfilment of this prophecy, it is sufficiently proved that it has been accomplished, not at once, but gradually in the course of the centuries. We have thus here again an example of that prophetic gaze which, as it were, sees in one plain what in reality is extended through many successive stages of time. Comp. what Vitringa has compiled on this subject with great learning, under the title, “Implementum prophetiae literale;”Gesenius and Delitzsch in their commentaries; my work: “Der Prophet Jeremia und Babylon.” p. 135 sq.; and especially Ritter,Erdkunde XI. p. 865 sq.; “Die Ruinengruppe des alten Babylon.”Ritter describes the impression made by the vast extent of Babylon’s ruins: “When one mounts one of these elevations, he beholds in the external, solemn stillness of this world of ruins the bright mirror of the Euphrates flowing far away, that wanders full of majesty through that solitude like a royal pilgrim roaming amid the silent ruins of his desolated kingdom.”
[J. A. Alexander on Isa_13:20-21. “The endless discussions as to the identity of the species of animals here named, however laudable as tending to promote exact lexicography and natural history, have little or no bearing on the interpretation of the passage. Nothing more will be here attempted than to settle one or two points of comparative importance. Many interpreters regard the whole verse as an enumeration of particular animals. This has arisen from the assumption of a perfect parallelism in the clause. It is altogether natural, however, to suppose that the writer would first make use of general expressions, and afterwards descend to particulars. This supposition is confirmed by the etymology and usage of öééí , both which determine it to mean those belonging to or dwelling in the desert. In this sense it is sometimes applied to men (Psa_72:9; Psa_74:14), but as these are here excluded by the preceding verse, nothing more was needed to restrict it to wild animals, to which it is also applied in Isa_34:14 and Jer_50:39. This is now commonly agreed to be the meaning, even by those who give to àäéí a specific sense. The same writers admit that àäéí properly denotes the howls or cries of certain animals, and only make it mean the animals themselves, because such are mentioned in the other clauses. But if öééí has the generic sense which all now give it, the very parallelism of the clauses favors the explanation of àçéí in its original and proper sense of howls or yells, viz., those uttered by the öééí .—The history of the interpretation ùׂòéøéí is so curious as to justify more fulness of detail than usual. It has never been disputed that its original and proper sense is hairy, and its usual specific sense he-goats. In two places (Lev_17:7; 2Ch_11:15) it is used to denote objects of idolatrous worship, probably images of goats, which, according to Herodotus, were worshipped in Egypt. In these places the LXX. render it ìáôáßïéò , vain things, i.e., false gods. But the Targum on Leviticus explains it to mean demons ( ùׁãéï ), and the same interpretation is given in the case before us by the LXX. ( äáéìüíéá ), Targum and Peshito. The Vulg. in Lev. translates the word daemonibus, but here pilosi. The interpretation given by the other three versions is adopted also by the Rabbins, Aben Ezra, Jarchi, Kimchi,etc. It appears likewise in the Talmud and early Jewish books. From this traditional interpretation of ùׂòéøéí here and Isa_34:14 appears to have arisen, at an early period, a popular belief among the Jews that demons or evil spirits were accustomed to haunt desert places in the shape of goats or other animals. And this belief is said to be actually cherished by the natives near the site of Babylon at the present day. Let us now compare this Jewish exposition of the passage with its treatment among Christians. To Jerome the combination of the two meanings—goats and demons—seems to have suggested the Pans, Fauns and Satyrs of the classical mythology, imaginary beings represented as a mixture of the human form with that of goats, and supposed to frequent forests and other lonely places. This idea is carried out by Calvin, who adopts the word satyri in his version, and explains the passage as relating to actual appearances of Satan under such disguises. Luther, in like manner, renders it Feldgeister.Vitringa takes another step, and understands the language as a mere concession or allusion to the popular belief, equivalent to saying, the solitude of Babylon shall be as awful as if occupied by Fauns and Satyrs—there if anywhere such beings may be looked for. Forerius and J. D. Michaelis understand the animals themselves to be here meant. The latter uses in his version the word Waldteufel (wood-devils, forest-demons), but is careful to apprise the reader in a note that it is the German name for a species of ape or monkey, and that the Hebrew contains no allusion to the devil. The same word is used by Gesenius and others in its proper sense. Saadias, Cocceius, Clericus and Henderson return to the original meaning of the Hebrew word—viz.: wild goats. But the great majority of modern writers tenaciously adhere to the old tradition. This is done, not only by the German neologists, who lose no opportunity of finding a mythology in Scripture, but by Lowth, Barnes, and Stuart in his exposition of Rev_11:12 and his Excursus on the Angelology of Scripture (Apocal. II. 403).
The result apppears to be, that if the question is determined by tradition and authority, ùׂòéøéí denotes demons; if by the context and the usage of the word, it signifies wild goats, or more generically hairy, shaggy animals. According to the principles of modern exegesis, the latter is clearly entitled to the preference. But even if the former be adopted, the language of the text should be regarded, not as ‘a touch from the popular pneumatology’ (as Rev_18:2 is described by Stuartin loc.), but as the prediction of a real fact, which, though it should not be assumed without necessity, is altogether possible, and therefore, if alleged in Scripture, altogether credible.”
Ib. Isa_13:22. As àééí , according to its etymology, denotes an animal remarkable for its cry, it might be rendered hyenas, thereby avoiding the improbable assumption that precisely the same animal is mentioned in both clauses.]
2. On Isa_13:4 sqq. “God cannot do otherwise than punish accumulated wickedness. But He overthrows violence and crime, and metes out to tyrants the measure they have given to others, for He gives to them a master that the heathen shall know that they too are men (Ps. 9:21; Psa_11:5).”—Cramer.
[On 13 Isa_13:3. “It cannot be supposed that the Medes and Persians really exulted, or rejoiced in God or in His plans.—But they would exult as if it were their own plan, though it would be really the glorious plan of God. Wicked, men often exult in their success: they glory in the execution of their purposes; but they are really accomplishing the plans of God, and executing His great designs.”—Barnes.]
[On Isa_13:9. “The moral causes of the ruin threatened are significantly intimated by the Prophet’s calling the people of the earth or land its sinners. As the national offences here referred to, Vitringa enumerates pride (Isa_13:11; Isa_14:11; Isa_47:7-8), idolatry (Jer_50:38), tyranny in general (Isa_14:12; Isa_14:17), and oppression of God’s people in particular (Isa_47:6).”—J. A. Alexander.]
3. On Isa_13:19 sqq. Imperiti animi, etc. “Unlearned minds when they happen on allegories, can hold no certain sense of Scripture. And unless this Papal business had kept me to the simple text of the Bible, I had become an idle trifler in allegories like Jerome and Origen. For that figurative speech has certain allurements by which minds seek to dispose of difficulties. … The true allegory of this passage is concerning the victory of conscience over death. For, the law is Cyrus, the Turk, the cruel and mighty enemy that rises up against the proud conscience of justitiaries who confide in their own merits. These are the real Babylon, and this is the glory of Babylon, that it walks in the confidence of its own works. When, therefore, the law comes and occupies the heart with its terrors, it condemns all our works in which we have trusted, as polluted and very dung. Once the law has laid bare this filthiness of our hearts and works, there follows confusion, writhing, and pains of parturition; men become ashamed, and that confidence of works ceases and they do those things which we see now-a-days: he that heretofore has lived by confidence of righteousnesss in a monastery, deserts the monkish life, casts away to ashes all glory of works, and looks to the gratuitous righteousness and merit of Christ, and that is the desolation of Babylon. The ostriches and hairy creatures that remain are Eck, Cochleus and others, who do not pertain to that part of law. They screech, they do not speak with human voice, they are unable to arouse and console any afflicted conscience with their doctrine. My allegories, which I approve, are of this sort, viz., which shadow forth the nature of law and gospel.” Luther.
4. On Isa_13:21 sqq. “There the Holy Spirit paints for thee the house of thy heart as a deserted, desolate Babylon, as a loathsome cesspool, and devil’s hole, full of thorns, nettles, thistles, dragons, spukes, kobolds, maggots, owls, porcupines, etc., all of which is nothing else than the thousandfold devastation of thy nature, in as much as into every heart the kingdom of Satan, and all his properties have pressed in, and all and every sin, as a fascinating serpent-brood, have been sown and sunk into each one, although not all sins together become evident and actual in every one’s outward life.”—Joh. Arndt’s Informatorium biblicum, § 7.
5. On Isa_14:1-2. “Although it seems to me to be just impossible that I could be delivered from death or sin, yet it will come to pass through Christ. For God here gives us an example; He will not forsake His saints though they were in the midst of Babylon.”—Heim and Hoffmann after Luther.
6. On Isa_14:4 sqq. “Magna imperia fere nihil sunt quam magnae injuriae.
Ad generum Cereris sine caede et sanguine pauci
Descendunt reges et sicca mente tyranni.—Luther.
Impune quidvis facere id est regem esse.”—Sallust.
Among the Dialogi mortuorum of Lucian of Samosata the thirteenth is between Diogenes and Alexander the Great. This dialogue begins with the words: “ Ôß ôïῦôï , ὦ ἈëÝîáíäñå , ôÝèíçêáò êáὶ óὺ , ὥóðåñ ἡìåῖó ἅðáíôåò ;” thereupon the contrast is ironically set forth between what Alexander was, as one given out to be a son of the gods, and so recognized by men, and possessor of all highest human glories, and what he is at present. It is, as is well known, doubtful whether Lucian really was acquainted with the Scriptures. See Planck, Lucian and Christianity in Stud. u. Krit., 1851, IV. p. 826 sqq. Comp. also Schrader, die Höllenfahrt der Istar., 1874.
7. On Isa_14:4 sqq. ”Omni genera figurarum utitur ad confirmandos et consolandos suos, ut simul sit conjuncta summa theologia cum summa rhetorica.”—Luther.
8. On Isa_14:12 sqq. As early as the LXX. this passage seems to have been understood of Satan. It points that way that they change the second person into the third; ðῶò ἐîÝðåóåí , etc. At least they were so understood. See Jerome, who thereby makes the fine remark: “Unde ille cecidit per superbiam, vos ascendatis per humilitatem.” But Luther says: “Debet nobis insignis error totius papatus, qui hunc textum de casu angelorum accepit, studia literarum et artium deccndi commendare tamquam res theologo maxime necessarias ad tractationem sacrarum literarum.”
9. On Isa_14:13-14. “The Assyrian monarch was a thorough Eastern despot … rather adored as a god than feared as a man.” Layard’s Discoveries amongst the ruins of Nineveh and Babylon, 1853, New York, p. 632. “In the heathen period the pre-eminence of the German kings depended on their descent from the gods, as among the Greeks” (Gervinus, Einleit. in d. Gesch. d. 19 Iahrh., 1853, p. 14). Christian Thomasius, in his Instit. jurispr. divinae, dissert. proœmialis, p. 16, calls the princes “the Gods on earth.” In a letter from Luxemburg, after the departure of the Emperor Joseph II., it is said (in a description of the journey, of which a sheet lies before me): “we have had the good fortune to see our earthly god.” Belani, Russian Court Narratives, New Series, III. Vol., p. Isaiah 125: “The Russian historian Korampzin says in the section where he describes the Russian self-rule: “The Autocrat became an earthly god for the Russians, who set the whole world in astonishment by a submissiveness to the will of their monarch which transcends all bounds.”
Footnotes:
a flock that no one collects.
is caught.
Heb. the overthrowing.
Heb. Ziim.
Heb. Ochim.
horned owls, or, yells.
Or, ostriches.
Heb. daughters of the owl.
Heb. Iim.
Or, palaces.