A commentary on the prophecy of Hosea by Edward Pococke.

v. 16. They return, but not to the most high, they are like a deceitful bow; their Princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue: this shall be their derision in the land of Egypt.

In the former part of this verse is, as we said, farther described Israels perverseness and false dealing with God, and in the latter such punishments and evils as should there∣fore befall them. Their false dealing is first described in these words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ya∣shubu lo al, which ours translate, they return but not to the most high, but others otherwise. The expression is very concise, having but three words in it; the first signifies, they re∣turn, the second, not, the third, according to what is in our translation rendred, the most high: whatsoever is added, as the Particles but, and to, is supplied as understood, and the like in other translations differing from it, as by instancing in them we shall by and by see.

It was, we may well suppose, a form of speech usual in the Hebrew tongue in those days when this was spoken, and well under∣stood then when that tongue was vulgarly spoken, by those that heard it; but since that tongue hath for so many ages been left off from being spoken, and understood only by such as study it, and they not acquainted with the then common dialect and manner of expressions among them, seems more obscure, and gives occasion to men of diversity of con∣jectures concerning it.

As for the first word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Yashubu, by ours and others rendred, they return, by o∣thers, they have returned, by others, they shall return, we need not insist on the difference concerning the assignation of the time, the Verb being, as for form, of the Future tense, of the indifferent use of which z for the Pre∣terperfect also, and the Present, we have had before examples, and this circumstance here alters not the sense, as to the describing of their continual tenor in behaving themselves falsly towards God.

That which causeth the greatest difference betwixt Interpreters, as to their rendring and exposition, is their divers acceptions of the small word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al, by ours rendred, the most high; some taking it for a Particle, a Prepo∣sition or an Adverb; others for a Noun, and that either Substantive, or Adjective. This is the ground of that variety which is betwixt them, as by more particular view of them we shall see; as 1. the Greek render it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to nothing, a or according to other copies, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, to what is vain. The former read∣ing is followed by the Arabic in the London Polyglott Bibles, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 they have returned to nothing. The Syriac agrees also word for word with it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 although the Latin Trans∣lator there renders, Obliquarunt se nulla de causa, they have turned themselves for no cause; as the Greek also by some seems understood, who render it, de nihilo, in vanum, for nothing, or in vain. In this way of the Greek is ob∣servable, 1. that they seem to have taken the Particle 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al for a Preposition, signifying to, or for, or upon: and 2. that then they change the order of the words in their construction, as if Al, to, stood before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lo, which sig∣nifies, not, and govern'd it, taking it as if put in the place of a Noun for, nothing, or else un∣derstanding with it a Noun signifying, thing, or somewhat, as both in the Arabic and the Sy∣riac it is expressed; and so Cappellus thinks them to have read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Conversi sunt ad id quod non est, they have turned them∣selves to that which is not. Tremellius thinks them to have taken 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al to signifie b causam,

a cause, and so some Preposition to be under∣stood, (I suppose he means to be added to 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Lo, not, to make it signifie, without cause,) as others also whom Calvin mentions, though he approve not their opinion, according to whom also something should be understood, and the meaning, as he saith, be Revertentur, sed non propter quid, They will (or shall) return, but not for any thing (or cause,) i. e. if any shall ask what is in their minds, when (or that) they return, he shall find it to be meer smoak (or vani∣ty,) nothing of solidity or reality in it; to which perhaps Castalio's rendring, Revertentur sed nequicquam, may be reduced. Others al∣so in Capito, who expound it,

They return to Egypt, notwithstanding the Prophets for∣bid them, and against the law of God, neither compelled by need, nor any other real cause, but that they might go against the law, not because it would be ill with them at home, but because they feigned some such thing:

and so in Vatablus also, it is a defective speech, non propter, not for, i. e. non propter angustiam, aut propter verbum, not for need, or any matter. Which seems taken plainly from b Kimchi, and Aben Ezra also, who hath, They return to Egypt, not out of necessity, but that they may ca∣lumniate their Princes; in this way the order of the words would not be altered in the con∣struction.

Among those who take the word as a par∣ticle signifying, to, or for, and would have something understood and supplied, may perhaps be reckoned the MS. Arabic Version, often mentioned, which denotes, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They return not to profit, or, to what is profitable. R. Salomo to the same sense ex∣pounds it, They have returned to Egypt, but not 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 to profit themselves; but he seems to make the word, profit, not to be that which is understood, but to be the meaning of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al, which he notes to have the signification of exaltation, and that which is understood to be the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Le, signifying, to, which may give to consi∣der, whether the Arabic Translator did not so also. Besides this, there is in this way a transposition of the words, something diffe∣rent from the forementioned, in that for, they do return, not, he puts, they do not return, of which transposition, as used by others also, we shall by and by have occasion to speak. As a Preposition in the signification of, to, would it be taken also in that conjectural reading of c Capellus, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, non ad me, they return, (but) not to me; which reading, though it would make a good sense, yet there being no ground for it but mere conjecture, there is no reason for us to embrace. I rather think, if that meaning should be taken, yet that it were to be referr'd to a customary form or short way of speaking in use among them, wherein it being said, they return, not to, was ordinarily understood what was farther meant, whether, to me, or, to, or for, any purpose, or the like.

Against the way that the Greek take may be objected, that the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al, hath here the vowel Chamets, which is a broader sound∣ing a, and not Patach a, of a slenderer sound, d as it usually hath when it is put by it self as a Preposition. But this the learned L. de Dieu shews not to be a necessary rule; though he himself take it to be, not a Preposition but ra∣ther an Adverb: in which way taken it hath the vowel Chamets, which is here put to it, and signifies supra, sursum, above, or upwards, so that the words he would have to be rendred, Revertuntur, sed non sursum, They return, but not upwards; which will fall in well, as to the meaning, with what our Translation hath, though it be manifest (as will by and by ap∣pear) that ours took not the word for a Par∣ticle as he doth. So likewise he would have it rendred 2 Sam. 23.1. In much the same signification, as to the word, takes it a e learned man, who for the rendring of the words putting, Revertentur, non supra, They will return, not above, gives in his note for the meaning, they have not hitherto from their heart returned unto me.

Those that take it for a Noun, differ also among themselves, in giving the meaning of it. The Vulgar Latin renders it by jugum, as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al were the same that 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ol elsewhere; Reversi sunt, ut essent absque jugo, They retur∣ned, that they might be without yoke; as they also render 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al (where the Vowel is Patach) Hos. 11.7. So that they seem to have thought the word, with either of these vowels, to sig∣nifie a yoke. for why should we think that they in both these did read, Ol? f Some look on the Chaldee Paraphrast as agreeing with this, which hath, They are returned rebelliously to fall from the law, not for that I have done evil to them; as if they desired to be in such an estate, as they were in before the yoke of the law was put upon them.

Others have respect in it to the notion of height, the known signification of words de∣rived from the root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Alah, to ascend, and to be high, as if it were all one with 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Elyon, high, but with some difference also in giving the meaning. R. Tanchum expounds it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 They return to that which is not high; for (saith he) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al is a name of 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Height, as it is used likewise 2 Sam. 23.1. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Haggeber hukam al,

the man who was raised up on high, or, as he there explains it, which was settled in a de∣gree of height; and again, Hos. 11.7. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Veel al yikrauhu, though there 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al be with another vowel, viz. Patach, not Chamets, as it is here, which he there ex∣pounds,

They called him to an high degree, which is the worship of the high God; and so the meaning here is, that they leave the highest degree, which is the worship of the most high God, and the drawing near to him, and turn to that which is lower, to wit, the worship of Idols.

g Others, with whom ours agree, well look on it as an Epithet of God, and the words to be rendred, not to the high, or the most high, viz. God. When affli∣ction cometh upon them, they return h (saith Kimchi) to cry unto their Idols, not to me, who am high above all: and agreeably Abarbinel, They re∣turn not to God most high, but to chance, (as if things came by chance to them,) and in this were ungrateful. According to this reading, which ours follow, that for which they are taxed will seem to be, that they do sometimes make a shew of returning or repentance, but do it not with hearty and sincere conversion to God, as v. 14. they cried, but not with their heart unto him.

In these ways seems to be understood some Preposition to go before 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Al, which may signifie, to, or, unto, as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 El, to, by which Kimchi supplies it, or the i Prefix 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Le, by which R. Tanchum, as Abarbinel, doth by 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caneged.

k Some will have here also to be a trajection or transposition of the words, and, conver∣tuntur, non ad excelsum, to be for, non conver∣tuntur ad excelsum, They return, not to the high, for, they do not return to the high, which I look on as no good direction; for by it is taken away that Emphasis in the words, which gives us to distinguish between a true and an hy∣pocritical or falsly pretended conversion, such as they are taxed for, that charged on them not being that they returned not at all, or made no shew of repentance, but that they returned not home to the Lord, as he requires that true converts should, Jer. 4.1. If thou wilt return, O Israel, saith the Lord, return un∣to me; which in our Translation is well given notice of by supplying, but, viz. They return, but not to the most high.

Thus in these words is their perverseness and false dealing with God described. The same is, according to most, farther declared in the next, viz. they are 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ceke∣sheth remiah, like a deceitful bow. The same comparative expression is used also to set forth the false dealing of their ancestors, Ps. 78.57. They were turned aside like a deceitful bow, or a bow of deceit, for the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as Kim∣chi observes, may be taken either as an Adje∣ctive, or Substantive. In the explication of this comparison there is some difference, some placing the deceitfulness in him that shoot∣eth in the bow, others in the bow it self. The first way Kimchi gives, who saith, that here is attributed to the bow the deceit, because that is the instrument of doing, though in (or by) the hand of another, that so the meaning should be, that they are as a bow, which he that bendeth (or the shooter) seems to direct so as if he would shoot one way, but on a sud∣dain turns his hand another way; and to make out his comparison, saith, that Israel were the bow, he that bent the bow, or man∣aged it, were the false Prophets, by whom they were turned away; so that Israel, which sometimes seemed to turn to the right way, did on a suddain, by their means deceiving them, turn to the wrong: and he gives an example in the l story of Eliah, who having given an evident proof for the truth of the only true God, they convinced thereby all cry out, The Lord he is the God,, yet for all this shortly returned to worship their Baals and their Calves. And to the same purpose doth he expound the same words, where we said they are Ps. 78. They were turned like a deceitful bow;

when (saith he) a deceitful cunning archer makes a shew of shooting one way, and shoots the other, that they that stand on that side may not be ware of him, but he suddenly turns to them, &c.

Which exposition likewise R. Joseph Chaiion on that place gives, though joyning another, which we shall by and by see, viz.

that the deceit is in the master of the bow that shoots with it, who sometimes, that he whom he would shoot might not beware of him, makes a shew as if he would shoot the other way, but on a suddain turns his bow and shoots him. So was it with them in making shew as if they would not transgress Gods com∣mandements, but on a suddain turned away from him, and transgressed them.

m Others also look on this as so meant of the deceit of the shooter, though his bow mean while be true and fit for execution; and n one saith, that here is an allusion to that way of shoot∣ing, whereby skilful archers directing their arrows either under their arms, or over their shoulders, shoot their enemie when they seem to flee from him; in which kind the Parthians of old were famous, and as he saith, the inhabitants of Syria and Palestine well

skilled and exercised.

But others look on, as respected in the similitude, not the shooter, but the bow it self, as being warped or wryed, or ill made; so as that however the archer directs it, it will deceive him, and not carry the arrow right or home to the mark. And this seems the plai∣ner way, there being no mention in the words of the shooter, but of the bow. A deceitful bow, i. e. saith R. Salomo, such a one, as when one would shoot with it to the north, carries the arrow southward, i. e. clean another way. A bow, (saith Jerom) qui percutit dirigentem, & vulnerat dominum, that instead of carrying the arrow forward, recoils it back, and strikes him that levels it, and wounds the shooter. Although I cannot conceive, how a bow, however wrong and aside it may carry the arrow, yet should reflect it so directly back, as to strike him that shoots; yet is it a notion that by many is put into their description of a deceitful bow, while o they say to this purpose, that it it is such as through its obliquity carries the arrow shot out of it, not to the mark but aside, and of∣ten clean back again on him that shoots it. Such being a deceitful bow, the application of the similitude, in which Israel is compared thereto, will easily be made, viz. in that they are false in their dealing with God, and their intentions pretended to be directed to him, are indeed carried clean another way, to other objects contrary to him. So that by p the bow in the similitude, will be represented the men; by the deceitfulness of it, the falseness and perverseness of their hearts; by the arrows wrong carried and away from the right mark, their intentions, purposes and practises, o∣therwise placed and fixed on other things than they ought to be. St. Jerom in that way seems to take the terms, when he saith, that those whom God made to be his bow against the heathen nations, turned against him their Lord, and shot against him the q arrows of blasphemy. And much alike exposition gives St. Cyril to this pur∣pose,

that the God of all, having r bent Israel his bow against the tyranny of the De∣vil, and against the deceit of Idolatry, to which all other nations were then given, and consecrated them to himself, they turned to the contrary. For instead of doing what they ought in that kind, they fought against God in the defence of Idols, and were there∣fore become as a bow turned the wrong way, a wryed or warped bow, and shot their arrows to the contrary of what they should.

This exposition he gives, as if 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a deceitful bow, were here translated 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as he observes some to read it, and of it as so read gives also another explication in more obscure terms, viz.

that they shewed them∣selves such, in as much as they who ought to have been bent as a bow against their ene∣mies, and strike those that opposed them, did, not taking notice of it, wound them∣selves as with sharpe arrows out of a bow. For they that offend God in such ways as he had before spoken of, and taxed them for, what else will they be found to do?

The first (in him set as the last) and plainest of these his explications, well agrees with those before mentioned; the other, I sup∣pose, he intends to the same purpose. But by the way we may observe, that in the or∣dinary editions it is not so read, as those whom he mentions did read, to wit, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, s but 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, as the printed Arab. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 sicut arcus intensus, as a bent bow, in an obscure sense, as t some censure it; which the same Cyril so explains, as if they remained stiff in their wicked pur∣poses of evil, not remitting ought, or submit∣ting to repent of them. But Theodoret seems so to take it, as if it were read, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, a bow not bent, and then will it well enough agree to the notion of a deceitful bow: for a slack, not stiff bent bow, if it carry not the arrow awry, yet will it not carry it home to the mark, nor with strength to do execution. But not to digress concerning these two con∣jectures.

Both those, who place the deceitfulness in the shooter, and those that place it in the bow, all agree as to the scope of the similitude, viz. that it is to set forth their hypocrisy and false dealing in all their pretences of turning to God; their mind is set, or carries them ano∣ther way, so that they never come home to him, but pursue still their false wicked ends. They also agree in this, that they take the words to be a taxing of them for what is evil in them; but others there are, that take them as a threat of what evil shall be to them, the one referring them to their fault, the other to their punishment; and these so explain them, that they are as a bow not good for any thing, but such as will deceive him that useth it, and expects to do with it any effect or execution, as being weak, broken, or any way defective. So u they that mention this way, explain it, They shall be as a deceit∣ful bow, which being directed to shoot an ene∣my, by the breaking of the string is unfit to do it; so doth he threaten that it shall be with them; and though they seem to have with them counsel, and help, and power, which by a bow and arrows is well described, as Ps. 27.4. yet shall they not prosper, nor

bring things to their desired effect, seeing, forsaking God, they fly to their Idols, and help of men: so shall it be with them, their Princes shall fall by the sword, &c.

If this meaning be taken, although the term of a deceitful bow, such as deceiveth the shooters expectation, and carrieth not the arrow home whether he would have it, nor answer•• his desire, may well enough agree to it, yet perhaps might another rendring of the word 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Remiah. as well, or rather better, express it, which is by the notion of casting away; for the root of it 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Ramah, hath in it both these notions, viz. of deceiv∣ing, and of casting down, or away, and shooting; and as it is by those whom we have seen, and the most, taken here in that notion of deceit, or deceiving, so is it by others taken in the other of casting, or casting away. So un∣der that notion doth Kimchi in his roots place it in the first place, though afterwards he saith that it may belong to the other. And R. Tanchum here plainly explains it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 a bow that is cast away, i. e. which is broken, not ef∣fecting any thing; not that the word properly signifies, broken, but that its being cast away argues that it is w broken, or hath some de∣fect in it, and is not fit for use.

To the fame way may be adapted the La∣tin translation, which Calvin mentions with censure of it, as making no good sense, arcus jaculationis vel projectionis. Indeed if it be un∣derstood as the words at first hearing sound, a bow of shooting or casting forth, I think it de∣serving his censure; but if the first word ja∣culationis be left out, and projectionis only be retained, and understood of casting away, i. e. a bow that is cast away, or fit for nothing but to be cast away, then will it be the same with that of R. Tanchum.

If in this way we take the words as a com∣mination of ill success to them in all their en∣terprises and undertakings, by Gods sub∣tracting his help and assistance from them, by reason of their ingratitude and false deal∣ing with him, for which they are before taxed, then may we think the commination to begin in the former words, and that they may be expounded, they shall return but not up∣wards, or, not to profit, as some we have seen render them; they are, or shall be, as an useless broken bow, not able to perform any thing with success. And they may be also coupled with those words that follow, their Princes shall fall by the sword, as Mercer (as we have seen) seems to joyn them, as also Ca∣stalio, fallacis arcus similes, ense cadent principes eorum, their Princes being like a deceitful how shall fall by the sword, if I mistake not his meaning.

But although this way of exposition may be justified on those grounds which we have seen, and makes likewise a x good and con∣gruous meaning; yet I conceive that other way, which refers these words to their crime, as a description thereof, and not to their pu∣nishment, and more particularly that expo∣sition which in the second place we mentioned, agreeable to that rendring and distinction of the words, which in our translation agreeing therein with many others, we have, to be more convenient; and in the next words properly follows a denunciation of punish∣ment to them for such their ill dealing, viz. Their Princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue, in which words is expressed what evil shall befall them, and the cause why.

Their Princes.] Under them being named, y divers think comprehended likewise the com∣mon people, in as much as usually in a bat∣tel the ordinary sort are most exposed to slaughter, the Princes and Chief being com∣monly best guarded, and their safety provided for; so that if they fall, it argues a great slaughter among the people.

z Others think the Princes particularly named, as those that were chief in the of∣fence, they stirring up the people, who are usually led by them to do and say what they did and spake.

Shall fall by the sword.] i. e. say a some, by the sword of the Assyrians; in their journeys, saith Kimchi, viz. to Egypt, whither they said they would go for help; or, as b others, in tumults and conspiracies at home, as above v. 7. and that, for the rage of their tongu••.

The word rendred, rage, is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaam, the significations of which are, according to the c Hebrew Grammarians, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Meisah, abo∣mination, rejecting, detesting, despising, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaaph, and 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Caas, wrath, or rage, and indignation: d some adde the notion of superbia, and magniloquentia, Pride, arrogancy, speaking of great or proud things; and the letter or Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 M prefixed to that Noun, which usually signifies, from, may also, as the sense requires, be rendred, e for, or because of, as noting the cause.

Now from different acceptions of the Noun,

and the attributing of that by it signified to different persons, arise different expositi∣ons of the word, f some attributing it to God, and expounding, from or for the dete∣station, or wrath of their tongues, i. e. because of that detestation or wrath, which by their tongue they provoked in God against them∣selves, thereby to deliver them up to be slain with the sword, or to be taken away by vio∣lent death; g others to themselves, for the rage, arrogancy, or pride of their tongues, i. e. for those proud, contumelious, arrogant, or detestable, or outragious things which they spake with their insolent unruly tongues a∣gainst God, his law, his Prophets and mes∣sengers, whom disdaining to hearken to, and h bragging of their own strength, or the strength of their confederates, they said, that God would not, or could not, help them, i but that if he sent on them the Assyrians, they would find help from the Egyptians, and so k led away the people to forsake him, and trust in them; or in that, leaving him, they said of their l golden Calves, and other Idols, that they were their Gods, and incited the people to worship them; and so will these words agree with what he said v. 13. that they spake lies against him. Such particulars, as comprehended under what is called 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaam leshonam, the rage of their tongue, do Expositors suggest to us.

Abuwalid in more general terms expounds the word to this purpose, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, that is, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 m 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for that which their tongues speak of evil, which they ascribe to the Creator and most high. The Greek, known by the name of the Septua∣gint, renders it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, which is usually rendred, propter imperitiam linguae ipsorum, for the unskilfulness of their tongue, which is by Tremellius censured as too frigid, or worse: but I suppose it would ap∣pear to have more Emphasis, and come more home to the purpose, if it were rendred or understood for the undisciplinedness, unman∣nerliness or rudeness, malepertness or sauciness of their tongue; agreeable to which it is here rendred in the Arabick, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 for the want of manners (or, civility) of their tongue.

The Chaldee Paraphrast renders (as ordina∣rily read) 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 n for the pro∣fundity or the depth of their tongue, which perhaps may be meant of the strange, heavy, hard, and uncouth things that they spake; and is by some rendred, virulentiam, o virulency, and ex∣pounded, atrocia convitia, heavy calumnies, or p pravitatem, naughtiness. The word in the Chaldee is elswhere, spoken of the tongue, taken for stammering, and q Buxtorf takes it so to be, and it would so agree with the Greek. But I should think that it was not at first, nor now should be read 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Amkuth, profun∣dity, but by transposition of a letter, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Akmuth, or Akimuth, as r some copies do here read, for the perversness or naughtiness of their tongue.

R. Salomo Jarchi thinks by this rage of their tongue, to be meant those hard speeches which Johanan the son of Kareah, and all the proud men with him, gave to Jeremiah declaring to them the word of the Lord, Jer. 43.2. and those men flying to Egypt for safety, contrary to that word, to be the princes of whom it is here said that they should therefore fall by the sword. But though they were in this kind guilty, and such punishments might come on them, yet sure can they not be the persons here meant, seeing they were of Judah, and that concerning them hapned not till after the taking of Jerusalem, whereas here those of Ephraim are spoken to, and the things spo∣ken of are probably therefore s such as were acted several years before, in or about the time of Hoshea the son of Elah last King of Israel, according to what the history suggests, 2 Ki. 12.4. &c.

Castalio seems here to take 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaam, ren∣dred, rage, to signifie rather the punishment of that sin than the sin it self, (as other words signifying sin are also taken for the punishment of sin, and t this is by some no∣ted to do) rendring the words, shall fall by the sword, Et ita linguae suae poenas dabunt, and so shall suffer punishment for their tongue, and ad∣ding this note, suorum in me maledictorum, for their evil words against me; which though it give well the meaning of the words, yet can∣not be looked on as a literal translation of the words, in respect that the Preposition 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 M, from, or for, cannot well be rendred with the word, punishment, so as to signifie, for pu∣nishment, i. e. by way of punishment, but would sound, for the punishment, that is, because of the punishment of their tongue, which will not be proper to say: For their falling by the sword was not caused by their punishment, but was it self the punishment: with maledi∣cta, evil speakings, which he hath in his note, it will well be so construed; so that that is ra∣ther

to be looked on for the literal interpreta∣tion than that in his text, which is rather a pa∣raphrastical explication of the meaning of it, and so falls in with the second way which we last mentioned. Concerning which way we may farther with some observe, that though it differ from the first, yet it so far falls in with it as necessarily to infer it; for where there is in the tongues of proud men such arrogancy, pride, and wickedness as we have seen, un∣der 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zaam, which is, rage, to be com∣prehended, there will necessarily be provoked in God wrath against, and detestation of, their wicked tongue, which will cause him to pu∣nish it.

But there is yet a third way, different from ei∣ther of these; whereas in the first is under∣stood the wrath of God by their tongue pro∣voked, or their provoking of him to it, or his detestation of their insolent tongue, in the second, the insolency of their tongue or arrogant words, whereby they provoked him; and so in the one, that wrath or dete∣station is attributed to God; in the other, to their Princes, or them and the people toge∣ther, this attributes it rather to the people, as distinct from the Princes, and makes it to signifie that which they said prejudicial to them; as if here were described what evil were procured to them by the rage of the ill tongues of the people, and the meaning were, That the Princes should fall by reason of the rage of the tongue of the people, by that u sword which was (as it were) drawn and set on work by those calumnies and reproaches whereby they set them on quarrelling one with another to their mutual destruction, or such w libellous and virulent speeches where∣by they raised up contentions between them, or conspiracies against them. This way also makes a good meaning, agrees well with the words, and is followed by men of good judg∣ment; yet the second seems as the most com∣mon, so the plainest, and most agreeable to the sound of the words in their place, and our Translation properly admits it.

There follows in the conclusion of the v. and of this chapter, as consequent on what hath been said, This shall be their derision in the land of Egypt; so ours render with the most 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zo, This, viz. what hath been spoken of them, what hath been said they do, have done, or shall do, or what shall be done to them. What that is, and how to understand it, we shall better judge, when we have seen the import of the next word, which is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Laagam, rendred, their derision: which word may be understood, either of that whereby they derided others, so taking them as the agents, the persons that did deride; or of that wherein they were or should be derided, making them as patients, those that were de∣rided; and of Expositors some take it in the one way, some in the other. Among those that take it in the first way, actively, seems to be the Chaldee Paraphrast, who expounds the words, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 These were their deeds when they were in the land of Egypt; where for making the sense clear will be need to supply a particle of similitude, that the words may sound, This that they now do, or, these things that they now do, in murmuring against God and his Pro∣phets, and their forsaking him to worship Idols, and flying to others for help and prote∣ction, are like those things which their fore∣fathers did of old when they were in the land of Egypt. Which way St. Jerom also expresly takes, saying, that

it is here said or meant their Princes, who deceived the unhappy people, should fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue, because they pre∣sumed to call the golden Calves gods, that so they might do in the land of promise what they had learned in Egypt, there worship∣ping the Egyptian God Apis, and all other their abominations. For so also in the wil∣derness, when they went out of Egypt, they derided the Lord, saying (of the Calf,) x These be thy Gods O Israel, &c. would we were in the land of Egypt, y when we sate by the flesh-pots, &c.

According to which words of his, to make out the meaning, not only the particle of si∣militude is to be understood, as we said, but the land of Egypt also to be taken in a larger sense, than only for that countrey, and the precise time of their being in it, viz. for the places near it, whether they went till their setling elsewhere, viz. in the promised land; so do the examples of those their ill behavi∣ours towards God, which he thinks here ex∣pressed by derision, shewed in their travelling through the wilderness, require both the place and time to be understood.

Such acception of the word, derision, in an active sense, for that wherewith they derided God, or contumeliously behaved themselves toward him, is by z divers others embraced; by some in quite the same way, a who prefer it before other ways; as also by Abarbinel among the Jews, who interprets 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Laa∣gam, their derision in the land of Egypt, by, because when they were there in captivity before they received the law, such were the words of those of them, who serving Idols derided them who clave to the true faith; by others with some difference, who do not look on the words, this was their derision, to be a description of

the manner of their deriding, by comparing it to that of their fathers, and to sound, such was the derision of them of old in Egypt as theirs now is, this like that, but to include in the name of the fault the signification of its effect, reward, or punishment, and to sound, this, that is, these things that now happen to them, viz. the falling of their Princes by the sword, is, or shall be the deri∣sion, or reward of that derision, b qua me jam inde à terra Aegypti subsannaverunt, with which they derided me ever since from the land of Egypt, i. e. ever since they were there, or ever since they came thence, taking the land of Egypt in that latitude which we before mentioned. But it may seem to be far fetched to look on what they now suffer, as a reward of what those of old did. c Another, if we should follow this way, seems to come nea∣rer to the purpose, in understanding it of such derision wherewith, going now to Egypt for help, they probably derided God, as not being able to protect them at home, which made them come thither for help; for which cause, and for punishment of which perverse doing, it is that this shall befall them, viz. that their Princes shall fall by the sword. Among those also who take derision in an active sense, may be reckoned that which R. Tanchum cites, of some that expounded it, 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 This is (or shall be) because of their derision of the Egyptians; but though he cite it, he approves it not, and I know not how he should, except he shewed us how or when they did deride the Egyp∣tians.

But another way as we said there is, in ta∣king the word derision, not in an active but a passive signification, not for that whereby they derided others, but whereby they them∣selves were derided, and were not the actors but the sufferers in it: and then that which is comprehendeded in the word this, is what they have done, or what hath been done by or among them, as their forsaking God, and calling to Egypt, their rebelling and imagin∣ing mischief against God, their dealing falsly with him, or what more immediately pre∣cedes, viz. the falling of their Princes by the sword for the rage of their tongue, as it hath been before expounded, being joyned with that derision in the assertion, this is or shall be their derision, will import not the issue, reward, or effect, but rather the cause, this shall cause them to be derided; and the subjoyning, in the land of Egypt, then shews where or by whom they should be derided, viz. by the Egyp∣tians, to whom they called, or to whom they betook themselves for help, and expected better terms from them, assistance, not deri∣sion and scoffing. And this seems the plainer way, and is by many taken, who had all seen the C••aldee Paraphrast, and many of them St. Jerom also, and no doubt considered well what they said, and knew that they were by others followed; though perhaps among these also there may be some difference in the expressions.

Among these are of the Jews R. Salomo, who expounds it, This shall be their derision where∣with they shall deride them in the land of Egypt, (saying,) Why do you return to Egypt to bring punishment upon us? is it not written to you, Ye shall see them no more? And plainer. R. Kimchi, saying, "And what shall come upon them, [viz. their Princes going into Egypt for help?]

They shall fall by the sword in the way, and this their going shall be for a derision to them in the land of Egypt, which shall deride them, and scoff at them, when they come to seek for help of them, &c.

R. Tanchum also, d

This is their derision in the land of Egypt, i. e. for such manner of doings shall the Egyptians, to whom they shall flee, re∣proach them,

as he afterwards saith, they shall return to Egypt, c. 8.13. The same way is ta∣ken by very many of later Expositors, whose words tend all to this purpose, That even the Egyptians, to whom they sought for help, and to make them their friends, should, con∣sidering the ill condition that they were in, and their strange doings, scorn them, and have them in derision, even for seeking for help to them, to whom they were comman∣ded not to return, Deut. 17.16. e so that all that they should get from them, on whom they so far trusted as to contemn and neglect God, should be nothing but contempt and de∣rision. f Some more particularly reserring it to what precedes, Their Princes shall fall by the sword for the rage of their tongue, their vio∣lent speeches and libels against them, make the meaning, that for the often changes of things in their government they were a deri∣sion to those who were signally loyal and faith∣ful to their Princes.

It may be considered whether the words would not bear this rendring, This shall be their derision with the land of Egypt, viz. that notwithstanding their alliance made with them, and all the help they expect from them, their blasphemous Princes, who speak proud∣ly with their tongues against God, shall fall by the sword.

That in these expositions we find the Verb supplied sometimes by, is, sometimes by, was, sometimes by, shall be, as in ours, the reason is, that in the Original there is no Verb expressed, and so is by Interpreters supplied in such tense or notion of time as they thought best agreeable to the meaning; the words in the Original being only 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Zo laagam, This their derision, without any thing to deter∣mine the circumstance of time.

Notes

• z

  Futu∣rum est, sed positum pro Praeterito. Ribera.
• a

  See Drus. and LXX. Francf. More suo sensum potius quàm verba reddentes, saith Ribera.
• b

  Perhaps as 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Illah in the Rabbins signifies a cause, though from another root 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• b

  In Radic. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• c

  Critic. I. 1.5. p. 359.
• d

  Noldius Concord. p. 101. and in the Index.
• e

  Brenn.
• f

  Ribera. Chr. a Castro.
• g

  Calv. Zanch. Jun. Trem.
• h

  In his Comment. and see his Radices.
• i

  Which is understood often elsewhere, and here as Glassius observes. Gram. sac. l. 4. tract. 2. not. 3. 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 al for leal, and so Nold. p. 474.
• k

  Nold. not. p. 1010.
• l

  1 Ki. 18. v. 39.
• m

  Capito, Pelican.
• n

  Car. Veil.
• o

  Lyra. Calv. Zanch. Rivet, Tarnov. &c.
• p

  See Petr. à Fig.
• q

  Their arrows bitter words. Ps. 64.3.
• r

  A like expression see Zach. 9.13.
• s

  Bib. Polyg. Lond. &c.
• t

  Rivet.
• u

  Mercer, Rivet.
• w

  So in our old Translation of the Psalms, it is Ps. 78. rendred, a broken bow, and fo by some ••ere expounded, qui frangitur. Sa. qui cum intenditur adjaculandum, frangitur, Metcer.
• x

  Rivet.
• y

  Calv. Trem. Tarn. Rivet.
• z

  Kim∣chi, Petr. à Fig.
• a

  Lyra, Pare. Rivet, Menoch. Tirin.
• b

  Jun. Trem. Tarn. Grot. Stokes, Dutch notes.
• c

  Kim∣chirud. R. Nathan Concord.
• d

  Calvin, Kimchi. The Syriac 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉 Marochutho.
• e

  d. i. e. propter. River.
• f

  See Calv. Trem. Rivet.
• g

  See the same.
• h

  Mercer.
• i

  Zanchi, Drus. Tarnov.
• k

  Petr. à Fig. Capito.
• l

  Sa. Menoch. Veil, St. Cyril, Pelican.
• m

  In the MS. it is 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉, but plain it should be 〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• n

  Ob pro∣funditatem. Bib. Polygl. Lond.
• o

  Mercers Translat.
• p

  Another Lat. Translat.
• q

  In his great Lexicon.
• r

  Bibl. Reg.
• s

  Capito.
• t

  Shindl. Lex.
• u

  Jun. Trem. Dutch notes, and see Tarnov.
• w

  Grot. Stokes.
• x

  Ex. 32.4.
• y

  Ex. 16.3. so he cites the words for this purpose, leaving out the rest.
• z

  Ribera. Sa. Menoc. Tirin.
• a

  Ribera.
• b

  Petr. à Fig.
• c

  Brenn.
• d

  〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉〈 in non-Latin alphabet 〉.
• e

  Trem.
• f

  Grot. Stokes.