the extremity." And to this we may add, that cannot be shown to have ever been used in the sense of frightful.

Whilst Ewald lets the words slip, others, in direct opposition to the true character of the whole prophecy, connect them with what follows, so as to make a long straggling sentence, which is peculiarly inappropriate as a conclusion.

Auberlen renders it thus: "And for the devastating climax of abominations and until the completion, and indeed that which is determined, it will drip over that which is laid desolate." We have here a false rendering of, in which Auberlen follows Ewald,1 and also of It is the more natural to under

stand by

שקוצים

the destroyer, in the literal sense of the word, as such a destroyer had already been mentioned. Auberlen ought to have hesitated all the more, therefore, before he set aside any distinct reference to the temple, seeing that he actually does speak of the words as containing such an allusion.

Hitzig's first translation of the words was this: "And over the summit of the abomination of desolation and unto

it will be poured out." In defence of the rendering abomination

אֲדֹנִים, .he quoted Is. xix שקוצים משמם of desolation, for

where we also find a plural noun coupled with a singular adjective. But who would draw the conclusion from such an example as this, that every plural might stand for a singular. This is really the case with but a small and well defined class of nouns, in which the plural form is merely used to show that the word is employed as an abstract, not that the thing itself may also be regarded as an abstract; for example,

and

-when used directly to signify domi אֱלֹהִים and בְעָלִים also

nion. Now, if the same rule were applied top, which is never used in any other sense than as an actual plural, it could only be rendered: destructive abomination, or idolatry. But what would this mean? Could the lifeless idols of Antiochus Epiphanes be regarded as the authors of desolation ? And what could we understand by "over the wing, or over the point of the destructive abomination ?" We need scarcely say that

1 Auberlen must certainly have found it difficult to make up his mind to speak of an "accidental analogy in the Trepiyor of Matt. iv. 5.”

with this explanation there is inseparably connected a false ren

as well as of כלה ונחרצה dering of תתך

Hitzig's present rendering is "abomination of horror," or "horrible abomination" (Entsetzens-gräuel).

is said משמם

מתעב

משמם

to be a neuter noun, pointing out the object of amazement and horror., which occurs afterwards, is an abbreviation of opup. The object referred to is the heathen altar of sacrifice. But we can find no really analogous example of a "neuter substantive" in such a form as this. Is. xlix. 7, where is used for an object of abhorrence, is said to present the closest analogy; but both this and liii. 3 can only be made to bear upon the question by being falsely rendered. It is evident that Don is a participle, both from the form, and also from Ezra ix. 3, 4. As a Poel participle it can only be rendered in one of two ways; either in an active sense, which most naturally suggests itself in this "most emphatic active root," or as marking a gradation, which is the case in Ezra ix. Again, if op were a substantive, the could not be dropped. Moreover, if this explanation is correct, we cannot see why should stand in the plural.-Wieseler justly observes: "one argument against the supposed combination of the two words may be found in the fact, that, in the only passage in which it really occurs (Dan. xi. 31), the singular is employed. We are forced to the conclusion, therefore, that the plural is purposly introduced here, especially as this is the only place in which it occurs in the Book of Daniel; and that the object has been to prevent its being connected with pon, which would otherwise have been an admissible construction." Lastly, any allusion to the point of the altar would be altogether out of place.

השקוץ

שקוץ

שקוצים

"And indeed until that which is completed and determined shall pour down upon the ruins."

Commenta

We will first enquire into the meaning of tors and Lexicographers generally assume that the word means completion, and that it is used here for the complete destruction. The form of the word is sufficient in itself to excite suspicion as

to the correctness of this explanation. It is the feminine of the is of. The masculine occurs in Deut.

יָפָה as כָלֶה adjective

xxviii. 32 in the sense of deficiens, tabescens. The form

from a verb, answers to such forms as

in derivations

from the regular verbs, which are always adjectives with an intransitive signification, never abstract nouns, and least of all abstracts with a transitive meaning. The inference, which we draw from the form, is confirmed by the usages of the language.

is never used in any other sense than as a feminine, or neuter, that (which is) completed. A very obvious example of this we find in Zeph. i. 18, where is connected with another participle, "for the Lord does a completed (work), a fearful thing only, in the Niphal never means directly to make haste), with all the inhabitants of the land." This is also clearly the case in the passage before us, and in Is. x. 23, xxviii. 22, where is connected in precisely the same manner with another

participle. From this meaning of

we

adverbial use of the word in Gen. xviii. 21;

may explain the Ex. xi. 1; and 2 It suits the con

Chr. xii. 11; completely, entirely and very. nexion in Dan. xi. 16 "a completed (work) is in his hand," in contrast with the imperfect execution of his decree. And it is equally applicable to the frequently recurring expression

. This means, sometimes, " to do a complete thing, to carry a thing perfectly out, to put the finishing stroke,” Jer. iv. 27, v. 10, 17, (with persons) Nahum i. 9; at other times, with an accusative, to make a thing or a person into something finished, completely to destroy, Neh. ix. 31; Jer. xxx. 11; Ezek. xi. 13, xx. 17; Nahum i. 8. The meaning given by Hävernick to the expression in Ezek. xi. 13, "to execute a final sentence," does not suit the last two passages. With such a rendering, it is impossible to explain the use of the accusative.

The completion may refer to the determination itself, or to the execution of it. The verb is not infrequently used to denote the completeness of a determination. For example, 1 Sam. xx. 7, "if he, Saul, be wroth, know that evil is completed on his part," that he has formed a fixed and unalterable determination to do evil; and again at ver. 9;-1 Sam. xxv. 17:

now therefore consider, and look what thou doest,

הרעה

y for evil is firmly determined for our master, and for all his household;"—Esther vii. 7, "for Haman saw,

that evil was firmly determined against him by the אֵלָיו הָרָעָה

king." These passages show that the completion not only refers to a determination generally, but that it was especially restricted by usage to the completion of a determination to do any one an injury. It never occurs in a good sense (compare Prov. xxii. 8, and Schultens on the passage). Our adjective is also used in 1 Sam. xx. 33 to indicate such a fixed determination: “and Jonathan knew, that it was a fixed determination on the part of his father, to slay David." Now it is evident that, in this passage also, refers to something completed, not in the performance, but only so far as the determination was concerned; first, from its being connected with another word, which denotes the firm and unalterable character of a determination; secondly, from the word, which is always used to denote the cause of destruction, whether it be the wrath of God, or the sentence of God, but never the destruction itself; and thirdly, from Is. xxviii. 22, where the (the same combination as we have here) is described as an object of hearing, “I heard from the Lord, the Almighty, a completed and determined thing."

There is thus a perfect similarity between the relation, in which the two words stand to each other in the passage before us, and that which we find in these two passages of Isaiah;1 and this similarity renders it extremely probable, that when thus associated they had become current as a legal term, expressive of the last fixed and irrevocable sentence, particularly in cases of capital crime.

We do not regard this clause as a perfectly independent one, as many expositors do, who render it "until the completion it will drip," &c.; but we connect it with the preceding clause, thus: "over the wing of abominations comes the destroyer, and indeed," &c. That this is correct, is proved in part by the words

1 Vitringa has given a correct interpretation, founded upon Rom. ix. 27, but the explanation given by Gesenius and others is incorrect.

,כלה נחרצה

עד

, when rightly understood. For, if this must necessarily mean the determination, the final sentence, in contradistinction to the smaller amount of chastisement resolved upon before, cannot denote the termination of the dripping. The punishment inflicted by God does not terminate with the final sentence, but this is rather the first commencement of its fearful manifestation. Moreover, according to our interpretation the verb receives the subject which naturally belongs to it, viz., the final sentence, which is regarded as dripping down, because with God decree and execution coincide. Thus, in ver. xi. it is said: "Then the curse was poured upon us, and the oath, that is written in the law of Moses;" and in Mal. ii. 2: “I send you the curse;" and in Zech. v. 4, the roll inscribed with the curse, comes to the house of the thief and perjured man and destroys it. But if the clause be regarded as independent, must be rendered as an impersonal verb, which it never is elsewhere, and certainly cannot be here, seeing that it occurs in ver. 11 with a definite subject. We need not say, that the Vav in does not furnish a valid ground of objection to our explanation, for Vav is frequently used in the less restricted sense of et quidem, e.g. in ver. 25, p, compare Jer. xv. 13. Kat occurs

in the same sense in John i. 16.1

The expression "it will pour down over" is founded upon the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrha, as the type of all the subsequent judgments of God. In its primary signification is applied to the falling of natural rain (2 Sam. xxi. 10; Ex. ix.

Wieseler is

1 See Gesenius Lehrgebäude, p. 845, and Ewald § 330 b. of opinion that "the meaning assigned to Vav only applies to cases, in which it stands before a singular noun, or a clause governed by a preposition, but not when it stands before so long and independent a sentence as this is, consisting of conjunction, subject, and verb." the point in question cannot really be, whether Vav has any peculiar meaning; it is simply used on several occasions, when we should write "and indeed," or "and that." Again, the distinction drawn between

But

as a preposition and as a conjunction, can hardly be regarded as wellfounded. Where it appears to stand as a conjunction, the whole clause is treated as a noun, a thing of frequent occurrence in Hebrew. But even if we were obliged to admit the force of Wieseler's objection, it would be easy to evade it by a slight modification of our rendering. Nothing more would be necessary than to supply the relative before as Blomstrand and

others have done.

תתך