We suggest some origin, some complexion of thought, from whence may have
emanated the word “Ham,” and its derivatives, as found to have existed
in the days of the prophets; and we may here state that the Shemitic
languages seem to exist all in a cluster, like so many grapes; nor are
we able to say which stands nearest the vine. Doubts may be raised as to
the priority of any one named; yet we might adduce some proof that the
Coptic is younger, as we could that the Greek is younger still.
The Arabic word مَا _ma_ corresponds with the Syriac ܡܳܐ _ma_, and the
Hebrew מָה _mah_, and has been translated into the Latin _quid_, as an
interrogatory, used in all languages very elliptically. Thus, _Gen._ iv.
10: מֶ֣ה עָשִׂ֑יתָ “_What have you done?_” If the עָשִׂ֑יתָ had been
omitted, the מֶ֣ה would have expressed the whole idea.
It was an interrogatory expression of exclamation and astonishment, to
one who had committed a heinous offence. So when Laban pursued, Jacob
said, מָה _mah, What is my trespass?_ &c., as if in derision,—_What is
my horrid crime?_ Ever since the days of Cain some have manifested
wicked acts, as though they were operated on by some strong desire, some
coveting overwhelming to reason,—as if the action was in total disregard
of the consequences that must follow it. This state of mind seems to
have been expressed, in some measure, by the particular use of this
particle. Let us conceive that such a state of mind must be a heated, a
disturbed state of mind, as was that of Cain, and as must have been that
of Jacob, had he stolen the goods of Laban. The word thus incidentally
expressive of such an idea, by being preceded or influenced by a
particle implying particularity, giving it definiteness and boundary,
must necessarily be converted into an action or actor, implying some
portion of the primitive idea; and hence we find הֵֽמָּה and همُّ and
هَمَي _ham_ and _hami_ in Arabic, ܚܳܡ _ham_ in Syriac, to mean a cognate
idea, i. e. _to grow hot_, &c., _to boil_, _rage_, &c., sometimes
_tumult_, &c., &c. And we now ask, these being facts, is it difficult to
point in the direction of the origin of the word Ham? Nor is it a matter
of any importance, if the relationship exists, whether the noun and verb
have descended from such exclamatory particle, or the reverse; yet we
can easily imagine, in the early condition of things, that the mind,
taking cognisance of some horrid act, would impel some such exclamation,
and that it would become the progenitor of the name of the act or actor.
However this may be, each Hebrew scholar will inform us that the word
הָם is an irregular Hebrew word. Grammarians have usually arranged words
of this peculiar class among the Heemanti and augmented words, and they
have accurately noticed that the punctuatists have always preceded the ם
_mem_ by a (ָ) _Kamets_, or a (וֹ) _Kholem_. This circumstance has
induced Hiller to suppose that the ם _mem_, as a _Heemanti_, was a
particle, while the adjunct was either הֵם or אוֹם; but all agree that
the form of these nouns shows that they are intensive in their
signification.
If then הָם _ham_ is a particle of הָמָה _hamah_, which carries with it
the ideas before named, it may be less difficult to conceive how the
particle, when added to other nouns, will make them intensive also,
while the particle itself would be used alone to express some intensity
in an emphatic manner, more particularly of its root.
But we find the word חָ֞ם _ham_, as applied to the son of Noah, from the
root הָמָה _hammah_, or חֵמַה and used in Hebrew thus: In _Josh._ ix.
12, “This our bread we took hot חָ֞ם for our provision,” &c. _Job_
xxxvii. 17, and vi. 17: “How thy garments _warm_ (חַמִּ֑ים _hammin,
hot_) when he quieteth the earth by the south wind.” “What time they wax
warm, they vanish when it is _hot_,” בְּ֝חֻמּ֗וֹ _behummo, in the heat_.
So _Gen._ viii. 22: “While the earth remaineth, seed-time and harvest,
cold and heat וָחֹ֜ם, and summer and winter, and day and night, shall
not cease.” _Gen._ xviii. 1: “And he sat in the tent door in the heat
בְּחֹ֥ם of the day.” 1 _Sam._ xi. 9–11: “To-morrow, by the time the sun
is hot, (בְּחֹ֣ם _be hom, in heat_.) And slew the Ammonites until the
heat of the day,” עַדחֹם _ad hom, until the hot_. xxi. 7 (the 6th of the
English text): “To put _hot_, חֹ֔ם _hot_ in the day,” &c. 2 _Sam._ iv.
5: “And came about the _heat_ of the day,” כְּחֹ֣ם _ke hom, at the_
_hot_. _Isa._ xxiii. 4: “Like a clear _heat_ כְּחֹם upon herbs, and like
a cloud of dew in the heat בְּחֹ֥ם of harvest.” _Hag._ i. 6: “Ye clothe
you, but there is none warm,” לְחֹ֥ם _be hom, not hot_. _Jer._ li. 39:
“In their heats,” בְּחֻמָּם _be hummon, in their heats_, &c.
But in Hebrew, as in some other languages, the phonetic power expressing
the idea _hot_, _heat_, &c. was cognate with rage, stubbornness, anger,
wickedness, &c. &c., and hence we say _hell is hot_, and hence, in
_Dan._ iii. 13, 19: “Then Nebuchadnezzar in his rage,” חֱמָֹא _hama_,
_heat_, _hot_. “Therefore shall he go forth with great fury,”
בְּחִמָּ֣א֥ _be hama_, _heat_, _rage_, _fury_, &c.
Should it be said, the words in their declination, or rather the affixed
and suffixed particles, differ, and are marked with different vowel
points, we answer by quoting _Lee’s Heb. Lex._ p. 205: “This variety in
the vowels may be ascribed either to the punctuatists or the copyists,
and is of no moment. But as the word חָם _ham_ was thus applied in
Hebrew to the original idea of active caloric, as emanating from the
sun, so it will agree with its homophone in Arabic and Syriac; for let
it be noticed, that the Arabic word حَمٌّ _ham_ or _haman_, means to be
_hot_, as of the sun. So the Syriac ܗܡܳܐ _hama_ means _œstus_, _calor_,
&c. But in _Deut._ xxxii. 24, 33, it is translated _poison_; thus,
poison of serpents, and ‘the poison of dragons,’ from the notion that
great heat, rage, anger, &c. are cognate with poison.”
This word occurs in _Zeph._ ii. 12. The received version is, “Ye
Ethiopians also, ye shall _be_ slain by my sword.” The original is,
גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה, and has been subject
to much investigation. Gesenius considers the word הֵֽמָה a pronoun in
the second person, and Lee seems to side with him, but says, “the truth
is, the place is inverted and abrupt, and should read thus: גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם
חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י כּוּשִׁ֔ים הֵֽמָּה,” and which he translates
thus—“_Even ye (are) (the) wounded of my sword_,—they are _Cushites_.”
We do not perceive how he has made the passage more plain. Let us, for a
moment, examine how the Hebrews used this form חֵמָה or חֵם, that we may
the better comprehend its sense in the present instance. _Jer._ v. 22:
“Though they _roar_,” וְהָמ֥וּ _ve hamu_, _rage_, &c., “yet can they not
pass over it!” vi. 23: “Their voice roareth like the sea,” יֶֽהֱמֶה
_rageth_, &c. xxxi. 35; “Which divideth the sea, when the waves thereof
_roar_,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּ _say ye_, _hemen_, _rage_, &c. li. 15: “When her
waves do roar (וְהָמ֤וּ _ve hamu se_, _rage_, &c.) like great waters.”
_Isa._ li. 13: “But I am the Lord thy God that divided the sea, whose
waves roared,” _raged_. li. 13: “Because of the _fury_ (חֲמַ֣ת _rage_,
&c.) of the oppressor,” “and where is the fury (חֲמַ֥ת _hamath_, _rage_,
&c.) of the oppressor?” li. 15: “whose waves _roared_,” וַיֶֽהֱמ֖וּ
_raged_, &c. _Ps._ xlvi. 4 (the 3d of the English text): “_Though_ the
waters thereof _roar_ (יֶֽהֱמ֣וּ _rage_, &c.) and be troubled,”
יֶחְמְ֣רוּ _great agitation_, _rage_, &c.
But let us take a more particular view of this word, as used in the
passage from _Zephaniah_. The Septuagint has translated this passage in
Καὶ ὑμεῖς Αἰθίοπες τραυματίαι ῥομφαίας μοῦ ἐστέ, which is very much like
our received version.
But it should be noticed that it has translated the Hebrew word חַלְלִ֥י
into τραυματίαι; τραῦμα would imply the injury, wounds, carnage, or
slaughter of a whole nation, army, or body of people; but τραυματίαι
implies individuality, and reaches no farther than the person or persons
named. The prophet had been uttering denunciations against many nations,
but in this passage emphatically selects the Ethiopians as individuals;
and the Greek translator evidently discovered there was in this
denunciation something peculiarly personal as applied to the Ethiopians.
The Hebrew conveys the idea of reducing, subjecting, or bringing low, as
by force, to cause to sink in character as in _Ps._ lxxxix. 40 (39th of
the English text): “Thou hast made void the covenant of thy servant:
thou hast חִלַּֽלְתָּ _wounded_, _subjected_, or _reduced_ his crown to
the earth.” _Ezek._ xxii. 26: “Her priests have violated my law, and
have חַלְּל֣וּ (_wounded_, _subjected_, _lowered the character of_) my
holy things.”
But the word חַלְּלֵי is here used in the construct state, showing that
the idea imposed by this word was brought about by the following term,
חַדְבִי֖, which the Septuagint translates rhomphaias, which properly
means the Thracian spear; but חַרְבּי means any weapon, a goad harpoon
as well as a sword. The fact is, neither of these words were the usual
Hebrew or Greek term to mean a sword. The Greeks would have called a
sword μάχαιρα, and the Hebrews חֲנִית or דֹחַמ or כִּדוֹן, or perhaps
שׂכה; and Dr. Lee has given Ἅρπη as the Greek translation of חַרְבִ֖י,
which means a sickle, a goad for driving elephants, &c. It was a thing
to inflict wounds by which to enforce subjection, and the idea is that
the Ethiopians are covered by wounds by their being reduced by it, or
that they shall be. When Jeremiah announced captivity and slavery to the
Egyptians and the adjacent tribes, he used this word as the instrument
of its execution. Thus _Jer._ xlvi. 14: “Declare ye in Egypt, and
publish in Migdol, and publish in Noph, and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand
fast, and prepare thee, for the _sword_ חֶ֖רֶב shall devour round about
thee.” 16: “Arise and let us go again to our own people, and to the land
of our nativity, from the oppressing _sword_,” חֶ֖רֶב. Many such
instances might be cited, showing the fact that, in poetic strain, this
was the instrument usually named, as in the hand of him subjecting
others to bondage; and much in the same manner, even at this day, we use
the term “whip,” in the hand of the master, in reference to the
enforcement of his authority over his slave.
In a further view of the word חֵמָּה, as used in this passage, we deem
it proper to state that Gibbs considers it a pronoun of the third person
plural, masculine, _they_, and adds, “sometimes” (probably an
incorrectness drawn from the language of common life) “used in reference
to women,” and quotes _Zech._ v. 10; _Cant._ vi. 8; _Ruth_ i. 22. And he
further adds, “It is used for the substantive verb in the third person
plural, 1 _Kings_ viii. 40, ix. 20; _Gen._ xxv. 16; also for the
substantive verb in the second person, _Zeph._ ii. 12: ‘Also, ye
Cushites חַלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה _shall be slain by my sword_.’”
_Gibbs’s Lex._ p. 175. In Stuart’s Grammar, p. 193, he says, “_Personal
pronouns of the third person sometimes stand simply in the place of the
verb of existence_;” e. g. he cites _Gen._ ix. 3, _Zech._ i. 9, and
says, “Plainer still is the principle in such cases, as follows: _Zeph._
ii. 12, ‘Ye Cushites, victims of my sword אַתֶּ֣ם הֵֽמָּה are ye.’”
The fact is, the verb of existence, called the verb “to be,” and the
verb substantive, in Hebrew, as in all other languages, is often not
expressed, but understood. This circumstance is well explained in
Gessenius’ Hebrew Grammar, revised by Rodiger, and translated by Conant,
p. 225, thus, “When a personal pronoun is the subject of a sentence,
like a noun in the same position, it does not require for its union with
the predicate a distinct word for the copula, when this consists simply
in the verb ‘to be,’ אָֽנֹכִ֣י הָֽרֹאֶ֔ה ‘_I (am) the seer_,’ _1 Sam._
ix. 19.” And again: “The pronoun of the third person frequently serves
to convert the subject and predicate, and is then a sort of substitute
for the copula of the verb _to be_, e. g. _Gen._ xli. 26: ‘_The seven
good cows_, שֶׁ֤בַע שָׁנִים֙ הֵ֔נָּה _seven years_ (are) _they_.’” To
say in English, “The seven good cows, seven years they,” would be
thought too elliptical; but we do not perceive how the expression
converts “_they_” into the verb “to be.”
But again, the same author says, p. 261: “The union of the
substantive or pronoun, which forms the subject of the sentence,
with another substantive or adjective, as its predicate, is most
commonly expressed by simply writing them together without any
copula. 1 _Kings_ xxiii. 21: יְהוָ֤ה הָֽאֱלֹהִים֙ ‘_Jehovah_ (is)
_the true God_.’” The idiom of the language then does not
necessarily convert הֵמָּה in the passage before us into the verb
“to be.” And here let us repeat the sentence, גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם
כּוּשִׁ֔ים חַֽלְלֵ֥י חַרְבִּ֖י הֵֽמָּה _Zeph._ ii. 12. It will be
perceived that גַּם־אַתֶּ֣ם are connected _by Makkaph_. Hebrew
scholars do not agree as to how far this character is effective as
an accent. But the rules for its use are—“Makkaph is inserted in the
following cases: 1. Particles, which, from their nature, can never
have any _distinctive_ accent, are mostly connected with other words
by the mark _Makkaph_: גַּם־לְאִישַׁהּ _even to her husband_;
בְּתָם־לְבָבִ֛י _in the integrity of my heart_. _Gen._ xx. 5, &c. 2.
When words are to be construed together, &c., as זַרְעוֹ־ב֖וֹ _its
seed_ (is) within itself. _Gen._ i. 11,” &c.—_Lee’s Lectures_, p.
61.
But Stuart, seeing no way to translate the sentence without making
הִ֖מָּה the verb “_to be_,” 3d person plural, “_are_,” takes אַתֶּ֣ם the
personal pronoun, 2d person plural, equivalent to _ye_ or _you_, away
from גַּם, to which it is attached by _Makkaph_, and carries it down to
precede הֵמָּה in the sentence, and thus reads “_are ye_,” while he
supplies another אַתֶּם֣ as understood to precede כּוּשִים, and reads,
“ye Cushites, victims of my sword are ye.” We consider this as quite as
objectionable as Dr. Lee’s—“_Even ye_ (are) (the) _wounded of my
sword,—they are Cushites_.”
But permit us now to inquire into the probability of הֵמָּה being even a
pronoun. אָנכִי _a-no-khi_ is not believed to be a Hebrew word. It is a
homophone of the Coptic word Ⲁⲛⲟⲕ, and used by the Egyptians, who spoke
Coptic, as the personal pronoun _I_. This word is believed to have been
borrowed by the Hebrews at the time they were in bondage in Egypt, and
the habit of it so strongly established during their four hundred years
of servitude, that neither the literature of the age of Moses nor the
genius of the people could ever eradicate it. Their original personal
pronoun was probably totally lost; nothing analogous to this Coptic term
can be found in any other of the Shemitic tongues. But Lee says that
Gessenius has found it in Punic, and quotes Lehrege-baude, note, p. 200.
In Chaldaic, _the personal pronoun, first person singular_, is אֲנָה
_a-nah_, and its phonetic cognates are found in all the other sister
dialects. We may then well suggest that _the lost_ Hebrew term was אֲנָא
_a-na_, or quite analogous thereto.
Such then being the facts, let us inquire into the origin, composition,
and signification of this Coptic pronoun. It will be agreed that some
language must have had precedence in the world, and it is usually
yielded to the Hebrew. That such precedence was the property of some one
of the Asiatic dialects all agree; and the nearer the subsequent
language exists to its precedent, the more plainly will its descent be
manifest. If the Hebrew was such precedent, or any other of its
immediate sisters, the Coptic, existing in their immediate
neighbourhood, must have been originally very analogous to them.
It is immaterial whether our suggestion be right or wrong as to what
particularly was the lost Hebrew pronoun; let us take the Chaldaic,
which, of all these dialects, was the most nearly like the Hebrew—the
personal pronoun אֲנָה _I_, _I am_, and the word כִּי _ki_, which means
a _mark as a stigma_, indelibly fixed, as burned in, a mark intended
pointedly to indicate something; and hence it became a particle attached
to a word often by Makkaph, whence the attention was to be particularly
called, as, _mark me_, _mark ye_, are _just_, &c. &c. _Isa._ iii. 24: pm
tr1 he 'כִּי תַחַת יוׄפִי' 'kî taḥat ywpî' _a burned mark of stigma_,
instead of beauty. Some have doubted the accuracy of the Hebrew in this
instance, and the fact is, no doubt, that it is rather an Arabicism; but
that in no way affects our deduction; it matters not whether the Coptic
borrowed from Chaldean, Hebrew, or Arabic. These two words are beyond
question the origin, the compound of the Coptic pronoun, meaning and
including the individuality of the first person singular, and originally
expressing also the fact, that such person was _marked_ as a stigma
indelibly, _as burned in_, &c. _Anoki, I, a marked one_; _I, one
deformed as if_ _branded_, &c.; _I, one that carry the mark of_, &c.
&c., was the original idea expressed by this Coptic term of
individuality. Thus it expressed the fact that the person was a
successor in the curses of Ham and Cain, and in no other manner can the
extraordinary appearance of הֵם and sometimes הֵמָּה in the third person
of the pronoun be accounted for. It is evidently from a new and other
source, the same or cognate with the term applied to the son of Noah.
These adjective associations of the pronoun, through the lapse of ages,
would naturally be forgotten by the Copts themselves, and were probably
unknown to the Hebrews; just as we ourselves have forgotten that our
word _obedient_ still expresses some of the qualities of the Hebrew word
עֶבֶד _ebed_ and _abed_, from which it has been derived through the Latin.
This pronoun אָנׄכִ֖י _I_, &c. was often contracted by the Hebrews into
אֲנִ֖י _ani_, and in its declination stood thus:
_1st person singular, common gender_:
אָנכִי sometimes אֲנִי _I_.
_Plural_:
אֲנַֽחְנוּ _We_.
_2d person singular masculine_:
אַתָּ֖ה _Thou_.
_Plural_:
אַתֶּ֖ם _You_.
_Singular feminine_:
אַתְּ _Thou, fem._
_Plural_:
אֲתֶּן _You, fem._
_3d person singular, masculine_:
הֽוּא _He_.
_Plural_:
הֵ֥ם _hem_—occasionally הֵ֖מָה _They_.
Here we find the word in question, if a pronoun. The feminine of the
third person is הִי֖א, and plural נָה, and yet הֵֽפָּה is used in
_Canticles_ in a condition evidently feminine; and yet in _Zeph._ ii.
12, it is said it must be in the _second person plural_. But can any one
believe that these words, thus arranged in the declination of this
pronoun, could ever have had a common origin? The fact is, no original
language was ever formed from rules; the rules are merely its
description after it is formed. Language, in the infancy of its
formation, resents restraint and all laws, except such as apply to its
incipient state. Suppose a soldier for life should persist in calling
his infant son _soldier_, either playfully or mournfully; the child
would associate the term “soldier” with his individuality, and say
_soldier am sleepy_, &c. In case the soldier’s family was isolated from
the rest of the world, in the land of Nod, or elsewhere, then the family
of languages would be quite apt to have a new term as a personal
pronoun.
More pertinent examples would explain our idea perhaps more fully. There
never was a language upon this earth, of which any thing is known, that
does not show an extraordinary irregularity in the formation of its
personal pronouns,—often giving proof that the different cases and
persons have been formed from different roots. Webster says—“_I_, the
pronoun of the first person, the word which expresses one’s self, or
that by which a speaker or writer denotes himself.” “In _the plural_, we
use _we_ and _us_, which appear to be words radically distinct from
_I_.” Under _we_, he says, “From plural of _I_, or rather a different
word, denoting,” &c. Does any one imagine that _I_, you, me, and _us_
are from the same root? Webster noticed the discrepancy; we could have
hoped that he would have given the world a history of the personal
pronoun of all languages: we know of no intellect more capable. Such a
history would develop many curious things in the history of man, but
would be attended with great labour; and human life has too few days for
such a man.
Thus we may, hypothetically at least, point out the class of operating
causes whereby the Copts introduced הֵם or occasionally הֵמָּה as a
person of the pronoun, with the signification that the person to whom it
was applied was a descendant of the son of Noah; and the pronoun so
introduced derived from the noun חָם _Ham_. For, can we suppose the
_first person singular_ אָנֹכִ֖ה _a-no-ki_, and its third person plural
הֵ֖ם _hem_, occasionally הֵֽמָּה _hemmah_, have the same root, or are of
the same origin? This הֵם and the word חָם _the son of Noah_, are
identical, except the son of Noah is generally written with a _heth_,
instead of a _he_; but all know, who have studied the matter, these
characters very often interchange, and that copyists have often
inadvertently placed the one for the other. That which would seem the
pronoun is used in _Gen._ xiv. 5, and the Septuagint has translated it
as a _pronoun_; but our received version has no doubt restored the true
reading. The passage בְּהָ֑ם is translated “in _Ham_,” _i. e._ the land
occupied by the descendants of Ham, the son of Noah. The change of
_Kamets_ into _Tsere_, is really of no moment. These characters were
never invented until after the language ceased to be spoken, and was
long since dead. The points, in reality, are no part of the language.
The word in Genesis is indisputably a noun, preceded and governed by the
_preposition_ בְּ.
Perhaps no one has ever yet succeeded to satisfy himself and others in
the translation of this passage of Zephaniah; all, or others for them,
find it full of difficulty: but let us consider הֵמָּה a noun of the
same order as the הָם of xiv. 5 of _Genesis_,—in some respect in
apposition to כּוּשִים, but more emphatic, as the affix of ה would seem
to indicate, by its increase of the intensity, as well as its accounting
for the _dagesh_ of the מ _mem_, or its duplication. Let us consider it
to mean the descendants of Ham,—to express the idea, with great
intensity, that the _Cushites_ were _Hamites_. True, it is not in the
usual form of a patronymic. But we know not who will account, by
grammatical rules, for all the anomalies found in Hebrew, a language so
full of ellipses that some have thought it a mere skeleton language.
With this view of the subject it will read elliptically, thus: _So ye
Ethiopians wounded of the sword, Hamites_—with the meaning, that the
Ethiopians were subject to bondage, and at the same time putting them in
mind that the curse of slavery, as to the posterity of Ham, was
unalterable.
The meaning of the prophet is—So ye Ethiopians, reduced to a condition
of bondage, remember ye are the inheritors of the curse of Ham!
The arrangement of the language to us clearly indicates that sense.
Besides, we must take into consideration the peculiar meaning of the
words חַלְלֵי and חַרְבִּ֖י— that the prophet is writing in a highly
figurative and poetic strain; and we would also compare what this
prophet says to the Ethiopians with what the other prophets have said of
the same people. כּוּשִׁים is here applicable to all the tribes of Ham,
as in _Amos_ ix. 7: “Are ye not as children of the Ethiopians unto me? O
children of Israel, saith the Lord.” It may be well here to notice also
that the word “Ethiopian” is of Greek origin, and associates with the
idea blackness, like that of Ham. Thus, Αιθιοπς, _Aithiops_,_
sun-burnt_, _swarthy as Ethiopians_; αιθος, _warmth_, _heat_, _fire_,
_ardent_, _blazing like fire_, _blackened by fire_, _black_, _dark_;
αιθοπς, _burning_ _fiery_, _blazing_, _burned_, _darkened by fire_,
_dark-coloured_, _consuming_, _destroying_. _Donnegan_ p. 34. But Isaiah
speaks of the descendants of Ham perhaps in a more figurative language,
and in a more elevated and poetical strain:
1. Wo to the land shadowing with wings,
Which _is_ beyond the rivers of Ethiopia:
2. That sendeth ambassadors by the sea,
Even in vessels of bulrushes upon the waters,
_Saying_, Go, ye swift messengers, to a nation scattered and peeled;
To a people terrible from the beginning hitherto;
A nation meted out and trodden down,
3. Whose land the rivers have spoiled!
All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth,
See ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains,
And when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye!
4. For so the Lord said unto me, I will take my rest,
And I will consider in my dwelling-place,
Like a clear heat upon herbs,
And like a cloud of dew in the heat of harvest.
5. For afore the harvest, when the bud is perfect,
And the sour grape is ripening in the flower,
He shall both cut off the sprigs with pruning-hooks,
And take away and cut down the branches.
6. They shall be left together unto the fowls of the mountains,
And to the beasts of the earth;
And the fowls shall summer upon them,
And the beasts of the earth shall winter upon them.
7. In that time shall a present be brought unto the Lord of hosts,
Of a people scattered and peeled,
And from a people terrible from the beginning hitherto;
A nation meted out and trodden under foot,
Whose land the rivers have spoiled,
To the place of the name of the Lord of hosts, the Mount Zion.
_Isa._ 18.
The denouncements of Jehovah against the children of Ham are more
plainly expressed in the promises of God to these of the true worship,
his peculiar people:
Thus saith the Lord,
The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia,
And of the Sabeans, men of stature,
Shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine:
They shall come after thee;
In chains they shall come over;
And they shall fall down unto thee.
They shall make supplication unto thee,
_Saying_, Surely God _is_ in thee;
And there is none else,
There is no God (_beside_),—(_or, there is no other God._)
_Isa._ xlv. 14.
So _Jeremiah_: “Declare ye in Egypt, and publish it in Migdol, and
publish in Noph and in Taphanhes; say ye, Stand fast, and prepare thee;
for the sword shall devour round about thee.
“O thou daughter dwelling in Egypt, furnish thyself to go into
captivity: for Noph shall be waste and desolate, without an inhabitant.
“The daughter of Egypt shall be confounded; she shall be delivered into
the hands of the people of the north.” _Jer._ xlvi. 1, 19, 24.
“And the sword shall come upon Egypt, and great pain shall be in
Ethiopia, when the slain shall fall in Egypt, and they shall take away
her multitudes, and her foundations shall be broken down.
“Ethiopia, and Lybia, and Lydia, and all the mingled (_mixed-blooded_)
people, _Chub_ and the men of the land that is in league, shall fall
with them by the sword.
“In that day shall messengers go forth from me in ships to make the
careless Ethiopians afraid, and great pain shall come upon them, as in
the day of Egypt: for, lo, it cometh.
“The young men of Aven and of Pibeseth shall fall by the sword: and
these cities shall go into captivity.
“At Taphanhes also the day shall be darkened, when I shall break there
the yokes of Egypt: and the pomp of her strength shall cease in her: as
for her, a cloud shall cover her; and her daughters shall go into
captivity.
“And I will scatter the Egyptians among the nations and disperse them
among the countries, and they shall know that I am the Lord.” _Ezek._
xxx. 4, 5, 9, 17, 18, 26.
“And I will sell your sons and your daughters into the hands of the
children of Judah, and they shall sell them to the Sabeans, to a people
afar off: for the Lord hath spoken it.” _Joel_ iii. 8.
It may be we have occupied too much time, in remarks too obscure and
indistinct for biblical criticism, upon this passage of _Zephaniah_; and
it may be that, in the judgment of some, we have thus made ourselves
obnoxious to the satire of the reverend and witty commentator upon the
words:
“Strange such difference there should be
'Twist tweedle-dum and tweedle-dee.”
But we were sure the passage had been greatly misunderstood, and were,
perhaps, too much emboldened by the hope, that the providence of the
All-wise might yet again issue forth the truth from the tongue of the
feeble.
------------------