Micah 7:8-13 God Will Bring Grace & Justice To Fruition

Translation & Sermon by Nate Wilson for Christ The Redeemer Church of Manhattan, KS, 29 Dec. 2024

Introduction

v.8 – All Is Not As It Appears

v.9 – Getting To The Other Side Of Discipline

v.10 The Great Reverse

v.11 – Nehemiah’s Reconstruction of Jerusalem Prophesied

v.12 – International Influx Populates The Land

v.13 – Back to the Consequences of Evil

We are surrounded by so many miseries these days, wherever we turn our eyes, innumerable evils meet us everywhere, which are so many evidences of God’s displeasure. God grant, that we being truly humbled before Him, may be enabled at the same time to raise up our eyes to the promises of His free goodness and paternal favor, which He has made to us in His own Son, that we may not doubt that He will be propitious to us, inasmuch as He hast adopted us as His people…” ~Adapted from John Calvin’s prayer after his commentary on this verse.

Micah 7:8-13 Side-by side comparison of versionsA

DouayB (Vulgate)

LXXC

BrentonD (Vaticanus)

KJVE

NAW

Masoretic HebrewF

8 Rejoice not, thou my enemy, over me, because I am fallen: I shall arise, when I sit in dark­ness, the Lord is X my light.

8 μὴ ἐπίχαιρέ μοι, ἡ ἐχθρά μου, ὅτι πέπτωκα· καὶ ἀνα­στήσομαι, διότι [ἐὰν] καθίσω ἐν τῷ σκότει, κύριος φωτιεῖ μοι.

8 Rejoice not against me, mine enemy; for I have fallen yet shall arise; for [though] I should sit in dark­ness, the Lord shall be a light to me.

8 Rejoice not against me, O mine enemy: when I fall, I shall arise; when I sit in dark­ness, the LORD shall be a light unto me.

8 You, my enemy, are not going to be happy about me; although I have fallen, I have gotten up; although I reside in the darkness, Yahweh /shines\ toward me.

(ח) אַל תִּשְׂמְחִי אֹיַבְתִּי לִי כִּיG נָפַלְתִּי קָמְתִּי כִּי אֵשֵׁב בַּחֹשֶׁךְ יְהוָה אוֹרH לִי.

9 I will bear the wrath of the Lord, because I have sin­ned against him: until he judge my cause, and exe­cute judge­ment for me: he will bring me forth into the light, I shall behold his justice.

9 ὀργὴν κυρίου ὑποίσω, ὅτι ἥμαρτον αὐτῷ, ἕως τοῦ δικαιῶσαι αὐτὸν τὴν δίκην μου· καὶ ποιήσει τὸ κρίμα μου [καὶ] ἐξάξει με εἰς τὸ φῶς, ὄψομαι τὴν δικαιοσύνην αὐτοῦ.

9 I will bear the indigna­tion of the Lord, because I have sinned against him, until he make good my cause: he also shall maintain my right, [and] shall bring me out to the light, [and] I shall behold his righteous­ness.

9 I will bear the indigna­tion of the LORD, because I have sin­ned against him, until he plead my cause, and exe­cute judg­ment for me: he will bring me forth to the light, and I shall behold his righteous­ness.

9 Because I have sinned against Him, I will bear the wrath of Yahweh until whenever he shall plead my case, then He will execute my judgment; He will cause me to go forth into the light; I will see into His righteousness.

(ט) זַעַףI יְהוָה אֶשָּׂא כִּי חָטָאתִי לוֹ עַד אֲשֶׁר יָרִיב רִיבִי Jוְעָשָׂה מִשְׁפָּטִי Kיוֹצִיאֵנִי לָאוֹר אֶרְאֶה בְּצִדְקָתוֹ.

10 And my enemy shall behold, and she shall be covered with shame, who saith to me: Where is the Lord thy God? my eyes shall look down upon her: now shall she be trodden under foot as the mire of the streets.

10 καὶ ὄψεται ἡ ἐχθρά μου καὶ περι­βαλεῖται αἰσχύνην ἡ λέγουσα πρός με Ποῦ κύρ­ιος ὁ θεός σου; οἱ ὀφθαλμοί μου ἐπόψονται αὐτήν· νῦν ἔσται εἰς κατα­πάτημα ὡς πηλὸς ἐν ταῖς ὁδοῖς

10 And she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shall clothe herself with shame, who says X X, Where is the Lord thy God? mine eyes shall look upon her: now shall she be for trampling as mire in the ways.

10 Then she that is mine enemy shall see it, and shame shall cover her which said unto me, Where is the LORD thy God? mine eyes shall behold her: now shall she be trodden down as the mire of the streets.

10 My enemy will also see, and shame will cover her who has been saying to me, “Where is Yahweh your God?” My eyes will see into her; now she will become a trampled place, like mud on the streets.

(י) וְתֵרֶאL אֹיַבְתִּי וּתְכַסֶּהָ בוּשָׁהM הָאֹמְרָה אֵלַי אַיּוֹN יְהוָה אֱלֹהָיִךְ עֵינַי תִּרְאֶינָּה Oבָּהּ עַתָּה תִּהְיֶה לְמִרְמָסP כְּטִיטQ חוּצוֹת.

11 The day [shall come, that] thy walls may be built up: [in] that day shall the law be far removed.

11 ἡμέρας ἀλοιφῆς πλίνθουR. [ἐξάλειψίς] σου ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη, [καὶ] ἀποτρίψεται νόμιμS [σου]

11 It is the day of making of X brick; that day shall be thine [utter de­struction, and that day] shall [utterly] abolish [thine] ord­inance[s].

11 In the day that thy walls are to be built, in that day shall the decree be far [removed].

11 There will come a time to build your defensive-walls; at that time, the edict will be far away.

(יא) יוֹם לִבְנוֹת גְּדֵרָיִךְT יוֹם הַהוּא יִרְחַקU חֹקV.

12 In that day they shall come even from Assyria to thee, and to the fortified cities: and from the fortified [cities] even to the river, and from sea to sea, and [from] mountain to mountain.

12 ἡ ἡμέρα ἐκείνη· καὶ αἱ πόλειςW σου ἥξουσιν εἰς ὁμαλισμὸνX [καὶ εἰς δια­μερισμὸν] Ἀσσυρίων καὶ αἱ πόλ­εις [σου] αἱ ὀχυραὶY εἰς X δια­μερισμὸν ἀπὸ ΤύρουZ X ἕως τοῦ ποταμοῦ [Συρίας], X ἡμέρα ὕδα­τος καὶ θορύ­βου X XAA·

12 X XAB And thy cities shall be level­ledAC, [and parted] among the Assyrians; and [thy] strong cities shall be parted from Tyre X to the river, AD and from sea to sea, and [from] mountain to mountain.

12 In that day also he shall come even to thee from Assyria, and from the forti­fied cities, and from the fortress even to the river, and from sea to sea, and from mountain to mountain.

12 At that time, he who is from Assyria will come even to you and the fortified cities, then from the fort even to the River [Euphrates] and sea to sea, and mountain to mountain.

(יב) יוֹםAE הוּא וְעָדֶיךָ יָבוֹא לְמִנִּי אַשּׁוּר AFוְעָרֵי מָצוֹרAG AHוּלְמִנִּי מָצוֹר וְעַד נָהָרAI AJוְיָם מִיָּם וְהַר הָהָר.

13 And the land shall be made desolate because of the inhab­itants there­of, [and] for the fruit of their devices.

13 καὶ ἔσται ἡ γῆ εἰς ἀφανισμὸν σὺν τοῖς κατοικ­οῦσιν αὐτὴν ἐκ καρπῶν ἐπιτηδευμάτων αὐτῶν.

13 And the land shall be utterly desolate together with them that inhabit it, because of the fruit of their doings.

13 Notwith­standing the land shall be desolate because of them that dwell therein, for the fruit of their doings.

13 For now, the land will become desolate because of its residents from the fruit of their deeds.

(יג)AKוְהָיְתָה הָאָרֶץ לִשְׁמָמָה עַל יֹשְׁבֶיהָ מִפְּרִי מַעַלְלֵיהֶם



1Actually it’s the 2nd person singular prohibitive verb which is feminine, but the vocative “my enemy” is the addressee.

2enemy, i.e., the heathen power of the world, represented in Micah's time by Asshur” ~Keil
Waltke named it by Assyria’s capitol city, “Nineveh.”

3There seems to be a consensus among Jewish commentators that Edom is the referent, perhaps based on Psalm 137 and Obadiah. The Targums, however, identified the enemy anachronistically as “Rome”!

4Waltke considered the first perfect (“I fell”) as historical and the second (“I [will] rise”) as a prophetic perfect, but this is not due to any difference in their spelling; it is an imposed interpretation. Cf. Owen of Thrussington’s footnote in Calvin’s commentary: “The verb for rising, as well as that for falling, is in the past tense… ‘Though I have fallen, I have risen…’ Newcome follows the Septuagint, and thinks that a conversive -ו is left out. It ought rather perhaps to be considered as the language of faith, realizing the event before it arrived. The fall and ‘the darkness’ refer no doubt to the outward calamities of the Church, its troubles and afflictions.”

5Keil took the interesting position that both were subjunctive (“I might fall, but I might rise”), but I don’t see that this really solves the problem, since it makes the rising uncertain and therefore undercuts our optimism. I also don’t think it is consistent with the use of the Hebrew perfect tense, but rather is something one might see in an Imperfect verb.

6“...lighte signifieth knowledge and comfort. Isa. 2, 9, 42, 49, 60, 61, Mat. 4, Luke 2. Darkenes the contrary, persecution, blyndenesse, sorowe. Isa. 13, Lam. 5, Mic. 3, Psa. 69.” ~A. Gilby, 1551 AD (see also 2 Sam. 22:29, Psalm 27:1, 112:4, Isa. 9:2, 60:19-20, Rev. 22:5)

7Calvin suggested that the Lord taking up the case meant that, since Israel was innocent of offenses against the enemy nation which God had used to discipline Israel, therefore, God would eventually bring that other nation under judgment too.

8Consider also the humble attitude of Job (2:10 “...Shall we indeed accept good from God, and shall we not accept adversity?”), Jeremiah (Lam. 3:39 “Why should a living man complain, A man for the punishment of his sins?”), and Nehemiah (9:33 “However You are just in all that has befallen us; For You have dealt faithfully, But we have done wickedly.”). (NKJV)

9Tsedâqâh is the righteousness of God revealing itself in the forgiveness and restoration of Israel to favour. (cf. Mic. 6:5)” ~C. F. Keil, 1891 AD

10 Cf. Zech. 10:5 , Ps. 18:42, 35:26, Isa. 10:6

11Admittedly, Nehemiah didn’t use the same Hebrew word Micah did for “wall” [גדר]; he used the synonym חוֹמָה, but Ezra did use Micah’s word to describe Nehemiah’s wall in Ezra 9:9, proving that it is a synonym. This “re-building” was also in fulfillment of the prophecy of Amos 9:11 “On that day I will raise up The tabernacle of David, which has fallen down, And repair its damages; I will raise up its ruins, And rebuild it as in the days of old” (NKJV).

12cf. Calvin: “The Prophet, therefore, under the name of edict, includes that cruel and tyrannical dominion which the Babylonians for a time exercised. We know what God denounces on the Jews by Ezekiel [24:25 ‘because they had not executed My judgments, but had despised My statutesTherefore I also gave them up to statutes that were not good, and judgments by which they could not live’ (NKJV)] Those ‘statutes’ which were ‘not good’ were the ‘statutes’ of which the Prophet now speaks... the Babylonians no doubt forbade, under the severest punishment, any one from building even a single house in the place where Jerusalem formerly was… ‘That day then shall put afar off; or drive to a distance, the edict;’ for liberty shall be given to the Jews to build their city… Some draw the Prophet’s words to another meaning: they first think that he speaks only of the spiritual kingdom of Christ, and then they take רחך, rechek, in the sense of extending or propagating, and consider this to be the Gospel which Christ, by the command of the Father, promulgated through the whole world. It is indeed true that David uses the word ‘decree’ in Psalm 2, while speaking of the preaching of the Gospel; and it is also true, that the promulgation of that decree is promised in Psalm 110... But this passage ought not to be thus violently perverted; for the Prophet no doubt means, that the Jews would be freed from all dread of tyranny when God restored them to liberty; and רחך, rechek, does not mean to extend or propagate, but to drive far away.” Ibn Ezra expounded this same view before Calvin. Rashi and Kimchi, however, interpreted it as a continuation of the enemy’s taunt.

13M. Henry: “God's decree concerning their captivity, and Nebuchadnezzar's decree concerning the perpetuity of it, his resolution never to release them, ‘these shall be set aside and revoked, and you shall hear no more of them; they shall no more lie as a yoke upon thy neck.’” The problem with this position is that rahoq doesn’t mean set aside/revoked, it means ‘far away.’ Keil agreed basically with Henry: “The explanation of chōq, as signifying the law imposed upon Israel by the heathen oppressors (Chald., Hengstenberg, etc.), cannot be sustained, as this meaning cannot be established from Psalm 104:20 [sic Perhaps Keil meant 94:20? I beg to differ because the meaning of ‘statute’ is the same whether it is from a local or a foreign ruler. ~NAW], and is not suggested by the context [I beg to differ! ~NAW]. So, again, the explanation, ‘On that day will the goal set (for Israel), or the boundary fixed (for it), be a far distant one (i.e., then will the boundaries of the land of Israel lie in the far distance, or be advanced to the remotest distance:’ Hitzig, Caspari, and others), introduces a meaning into the words which they do not possess. Even if chōq does denote a fixed point or a limit of either space or time, it never signifies the boundary of a nation; and râchaq, to be far off, is not equivalent to being advanced to a great distance. Chōq is apparently used here for the ‘ordinance’ or ‘limit’ which God has appointed to separate Israel from the nations; not a land-boundary, but the law of Israel's separation from the nations.” [This position falsely equivocates “far away” with “be separate,” which are different words in Hebrew. ~NAW]

14Micah’s word is חק, whereas the word for a property boundary is גּבוּל (or perhaps גּלילה or קצוה or תּאוה). Nevertheless, this was Waltke’s interpretation, and he even advocated turning the Hebrew singular into a plural (“borders”)!

15Cf. also Cohen’s Soncino commentary: “This is a prophecy of world-wide restoration from exile… ‘the River’ [is] The Euphrates [and] ‘from sea to sea… mountain to mountain’ [is] a poetic way of saying ‘from all over the world’…”

16Keil reasonably noted that Micah would more likely have used יָשׁוּב (“return”) instead of יָבוֹא (“enter”) if he were referring to returning exiles, but I don’t think the context calls for Keil’s interpretation. Note that יָבוֹא (“enter”) here in v.12 is in sequence with‎ יוֹצִיאֵנִי (“exit”) in v.9, so it is perfectly expected that the exiles would “exit” Babylon and “enter” Israel. Waltke noted in contrapoint that the context here is of nations being defeated, not of them being welcomed and saved at this time. I would add that the further context of having “enemies,” having “fallen” and not being out “in the light” yet, having “sinned” and “bearing wrath” and “going out” and “building a wall” all point to the Reconstruction under Ezra and Nehemiah, not the future Golden Age.

17Cf. Calvin: “[T]hey who take מצור... for Tyre are mistaken; for... metsur is mentioned twice, and it means ‘citadels’ and ‘strongholds.’” His English editor, John Owen, agreed, and was critical of Newcome and Henderson who had advocated for translating one or both of the occurrences of the word as “Egypt.” Keil, however, advocated for “Egypt,” calling it “the poetical name for Egypt” and claiming that “fortified cities” were mentioned because Egypt had more of them than most other countries [neither of which do I find to be compelling arguments]. Waltke, curiously, translated it “Affliction Place,” claiming that it was a purposeful deforming of the spelling of “Egypt” to “lampoon” it.

18Gilby, nevertheless, suggested it could be the Jordan River, which is geographically, if not linguistically, plausible.

19מִיָּם עַד־יָם compare to Micah’s וְיָם מִיָּם

20See also 2 Ki. 14:25; Psa. 72:8; 80:12; Jer. 48:32; Amos 8:12 for “from/to the sea” as a political boundary phrase. Keil agreed that it refers to “boundaries of lands and nations.”

21Mic. 1:4; 3:12; 4:1-2, 7; 6:1-2

22Calvin’s English editor, John Owen, suggested it meant “every mountain.” Keil agreed, explaining that it meant “from every land situated between seas and mountains, that is to say, from all the lands and provinces of the earth. The coming out of all lands is not to be understood as denoting simply passing visits to Canaan or Zion, but as coming to connect themselves with the people of God, to be received into fellowship with them... [cf.] Isa. 19:18-25...”

23Gilby agreed that the other “mountain” might be Carmel. Cf. Calvin: “[S]ome think הר, [ha]r, to be a proper name [for Mt. Sinai, as Gilby did], and render the last clause, ‘And from mount Hor:’ and we know that Aaron was buried on this mount. But the Prophet, no doubt, alludes here to some other place; and to render it ‘mount Hor’ is a strained version.” Cf. Waltke: “...south… north constitute a geographical merism… The Mountain [the definite article “the” is there in Hebrew] is the well-known mountain, Mount Zion...”

24“Its salvation shall not come till after it has been desolate...” ~M. Henry (Keil cited Hitzig in favor of this position.)

25More passages on “fruit of their deeds”: Isaiah 3:8-11, Job 4:8, Proverbs 1:31, 5:22, Jeremiah 21:14.

26Waltke suggested that this might be the reason Micah never names his “enemy” explicitly.

27“‘[T]he land’ ...cannot be that of Israel, but must refer to the heathen world in general” ~Cohen, citing Rashi and Ibn Ezra (Keil also took this position. But I don’t see why Israel “cannot” be the “land.”) “After the elect find salvation within Zion, the rest of the earth will become a… desolation.” ~Waltke (But to defend this position, he had to appeal to the second coming of Christ, an event which is not clearly in view in Micah’s prophecy.)

AMy original chart includes the following copyrighted English versions: NASB, NIV, ESV, Bauscher’s version of the Peshitta, and Cathcart’s version of the Targums, but I remove these columns from my public, non-copyrighted edition of this chart so as not to infringe on their copyrights. NAW is my translation. When a translation adds words not in the Hebrew text, but does not indicate it has done so by the use of italics or greyed-out text, I put the added words in [square brackets]. When one version chooses a wording which is different from all the other translations, I underline it. When a version chooses a translation which, in my opinion, either departs too far from the root meaning of the Hebrew word or departs too far from the grammar form of the original text, I use strikeout. And when a version omits a word which is in the original text, I insert an X. I also place an X at the end of a word if the original word is plural but the English translation is singular. I occasionally use colors to help the reader see correlations between the various editions and versions when there are more than two different translations of a given word. The only known Dead Sea Scrolls containing Micah 7 are 4Q82 containing parts of verses 2-3 & 20 and dated between 30-1 BC, and the Wadi Muraba’at Scroll, containing parts of verses 1-20 and dated around 135 AD. Where the DSS is legible and in agreement with the MT, the MT is colored purple. Where the DSS supports the LXX/Vulgate/Peshitta with omissions or text not in the MT, I have highlighted with yellow the LXX and its translation into English, and where I have accepted that into my NAW translation, I have marked it with {pointed brackets}.

BDouay Old Testament first published by the English College at Douay, A.D. 1609, Revised and Diligently Compared with the Latin Vulgate by Bishop Richard Challoner, Published in 1582, 1609, 1752. As published on E-Sword.

C“Septuagint” Greek Old Testament, edited by Alfred Rahlfs. Published in 1935. As published on E-Sword.

DEnglish translation of the Septuagint by Sir Lancelot Charles Lee Brenton, 1851, “based upon the text of the Vaticanus” but not identical to the Vaticanus. As published electronically by E-Sword.

E1769 King James Version of the Holy Bible; public domain. As published electronically by E-Sword.

FFrom the Wiki Hebrew Bible https://he.wikisource.org/wiki/%D7%9E%D7%99%D7%9B%D7%94_%D7%91/%D7%A9%D7%95%D7%A8%D7%95%D7%AA .
DSS text comes from https://downloads.thewaytoyahuweh.com

GVulgate and LXX rendered this conjunction causally (“for/because”), KJV & ESV rendered it temporally (“when”), and NASB, NIV & Waltke interpreted it consessively (“although”).

HLXX, Theodotian, Peshitta, and one of the Targums translated this word as a verb (“shines”) instead of as a noun (“light) – both of which are legitimate possibilities in the unpointed ancient text. The Vulgate and English versions follow the MT making it a predicate nominative. Targums go both ways, underscoring the fact that the meaning is basically the same either way.

IRare word found only here and 2 Chr. 16:10; 28:9; Prov. 19:12; and Isa. 30:30.

JWaltke considered this a “sequential” conjunction.

KLXX & Peshitta add a conjunction here, and Peshitta adds a conjunction before the next phrase; it doesn’t change the meaning, though.

LKeil labeled this as optative (“I wish for the enemy to see…”) and Waltke took it a step further, calling it a “Jussive” (“Let my enemy see…”) and an “imprecatory prayer.” But this is not based on spelling; it is based on their own intuitions, and no standard English version reflects those intuitions.

MRare noun only here and Ps. 89:46; Ezek. 7:18; Obad. 1:10. The verbal form is found over 100 times in the HOT.

NAn unusual form of the interrogative found also in Ex. 2:20, Jer. 37:19, 2 Ki. 19:13; and Job 20:7.

OThe preposition “into” is omitted by most English versions. Keil commented: “רָאָה with בְ, to look at, so that one penetrates, as it were, into an object, seeing with feasting of the eyes (so also in Micah 7:10).”

PThis word is only found here and in Isa. 5:5; 7:25; 10:6; 28:18; Ezek. 34:19; and Dan. 8:13 – always as a judgment from God.

Q“like mud on the streets” is a saying perhaps coined by David, as it is only found in 2 Sam. 22:43 and the parallel Ps. 18:43, before Micah’s time in the Bible. Zech. 9:3 is the only author to employ the phrase after Micah.

RThe Hebrew is more general (“build a wall”), whereas the LXX is more specific: “mortar bricks.” Sym. corrected to οικοδομησαι τους φραγμους σου (“to build your walls”).

SSym. rendered with επιταγη (“command” cf. Theod. προσταγμα), and he (μακραν εσται) and Aquilla (μακρυνθησεται) and Theodotian (μακρυνει) corrected the verb to match the MT tradition of “to be far.”

T“The word גדר, gidar, means either a mound or a wall; so it ought to be distinguished from a wall, that is, a strong fortress.” ~J. Calvin (Waltke asserted that it denoted specifically an unmortared stone wall.)

UWaltke was among the more recent commentators who advocated for this to mean an expansion of national territory. He commented that it denoted “ample space for all… the returning remnant’ ...in restored Zion.”

VLXX, Coptic and Armenian translations (followed by the NASB & NIV) add “your,” although later Greek versions added no such possessive pronoun. Targum added “of the peoples.”

WThe LXX (followed by Theod.) renders as though the Hebrew word were ערי (“cities”) instead of עדי (“until”). The mistake could be from either a misreading or from a mis-hearing. In the 2nd century AD, Aquilla corrected it to εως (“until”).

XThe MT is an elongated form of the preposition “from.” Aquilla and also Theodotian corrected the LXX to εξ (“from”) and omitted the extra text that follows in the LXX.

Ycf. Theod. περιοχης and Aq. πολιορκιας (“beseiged”) both here and a couple of words later when the LXX rendered it “from Tyre.”

ZThe Hebrew Matsur could be interpreted as “from Tyre,” but none of the other versions except the Peshitta interpreted it that way.

AAAquilla corrected to και θαλασσης και απο θαλασσης και ορους του ορους (“and sea even to sea and mountain to mountain”). Theodotian’s version is similar: εως του ‘υδατος του ποταμου και της θαλασσης και απο του ‘ορους εως του ‘ορους (“unto the water of the river and of sea, even from the mountain unto the mountain”).

AB“The day” is in the LXX, but Brenton omitted it, either because it was not in the Vaticanus, or due to a lapse in his own attention.

ACLiterally “pulled into flatness”

ADLXX reads “a day of water and of chaos.” Either the Vaticanus corrected that toward the reading of the MT or Brenton slipped up in his translation of the LXX.

AEDSS adds –ב (in”) before “day,” an addition supported by the Targums, but not the Vulgate, Peshitta, or LXX, although the LXX does add -ה (“the”) before “day.”

AFThis phrase is obliterated in the DSS, but there appears to be more space than the wording of the MT would fill. No other manuscript has additional words, however.

AGThe root meaning of this word is “enclosed.” It only occurs three other places in the O.T. (2 Kings 19:24 – a parallel passage to Isaiah 37:25, where English versions translate it “shut up/beseiged/fortified/Egypt” and Jeremiah 10:17 – where English versions translate it “seige/fortress”). NASB, NIV, and ESV assumed that here and in 2 Kings 19 it is a shortened form of the word for “Egypt.” A third translation found in the ancient Greek and Aramaic versions is “from Tyre. It should be noted that “Egypt” is a novel translation which did not appear in Bibles until the 20th century.

AHWaltke thought that this conjunction should be interpreted as an emphatic (“yes”). Cf. NIV “even.”

AILit. “The river.” This was the moniker in the Bible for the Euphrates River, so NASB and NIV rendered it “Euphrates,” and the LXX rendered it “the river of Syria” for clarity.

AJWaltke thought that this conjunction should be interpreted as an emphatic (“yes”). Cf. NASB “even.”

AKNASB follows the ancient Latin, Greek, and Aramaic versions with “and.” “Newcome renders it ‘For,’ connecting this with the former verse, and applying it to heathen lands. But Dathius and Henderson render it, as an adversative, ‘But,’ ‘Nevertheless,’ and consider, with Calvin [and KJV and NIV], that the land of Israel is here meant.” ~J. Owen of Thrussington.

2