30 How could one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight, unless their Rock had sold them, and Yahweh had delivered them up?
*Minor differences ignored. Grouped by changes, with first version listed as example.
How should one chase a thousand. Of all the many tokens of God's wrath, he selects one which was peculiarly striking; for as long as God was on their side, they had put to flight mighty armies, nor had they been supported by any multitude of forces. Now, when, though in great numbers, they are conquered by a few, this change plainly shows that they are deprived of God's aid, especially when a thousand, who were wont before, with a little band, to rout the greatest armies, gave way before ten men. Moses, therefore, condemns the stupidity of the people, in that it does not occur to their minds that they are rejected by God, when they are so easily overcome by a few enemies, whom they far exceed in numbers. Moses, however, goes still further, and says, that they were sold and betrayed; [1] inasmuch as God, having so often found them to be unworthy of His aid, not only deserted them, but made them subject to heathen nations, and, as it were, sold them to be their slaves. This threat is often repeated by the prophets: and Isaiah, desiring to awake in them a hope of deliverance, tells them that God would redeem the people whom He had sold. [2] But, in case any should object that it was no matter of wonder, if the uncertain chance of war should confer on others the victory which often, as a profane poet says, "Hovers between the two on doubtful wings," [3] Moses anticipates the objection by declaring that, unless the people should be deprived of God's aid, they could not be otherwise than successful. A comparison is therefore instituted between the true God and false gods: as though Moses had said that, where the God of hosts presides, the issue of war can never be doubtful. Hence it follows, that God's elect and peculiar people are exempted from the ordinary condition of nations, except in so far as it deserves to be rejected on the score of its ingratitude. He calls the unbelievers themselves to be the arbiters and witnesses of this, inasmuch as they had often experienced the formidable power of God, and knew assuredly that the God of Israel was unlike their idols. It is, then, just as if he had said, that this was conspicuous even to the blind, or were to cite as witnesses those who are blessed with no light from on high. In thus inviting unbelievers to be judges, it is not as if he supposed that they would pronounce what was true, and thoroughly understood by them, but because they must needs be convinced by experience: for, if any one had asked the heathen whether the supreme government and power of heaven and earth were in the hands of the One God of Israel, they never would have confessed that their idols were mere vanity. Still, however malignantly they might detract from God's glory, Moses does not hesitate to boast, even themselves being judges, that God had magnificently exerted His unconquered might; although he refers rather to the experience of facts themselves, than to their feelings. Other commentators extract a different meaning, viz., that although unbelievers might be victorious, still God remained unaffected by it: neither was his arm broken, because he permitted them to afflict the apostate Israelites: [4] the former exposition, however, is the more appropriate one.
1 - "Shut them up." -- A. V.
2 - The reference is here generally to Isaiah 52:3, however, to which C. probably alludes, hardly bears out the statement in the text: "Ye have sold yourselves for nought, etc. The Fr. stands thus, "Isaie, en parlant du retour de la captivite de Babylone, dit que Dieu rachetera le peuple qu'il a vendu."
3 - diuque Inter utrumque volat dubiis Victoria pennis. Ovid, Metam. viii. 11, 12.
4 - This is the view of S.M. "Although our enemies now be our judges, this they have not from their own gods, but from our God, who has delivered us into their hands."
The defeat of Israel would be due to the fact that God, their strength, had abandoned them because of their apostasy.
How should one chase a thousand - If therefore they had not forgotten their Rock, God their author and defense, it could not possibly have come to pass that a thousand of them should flee before one of their enemies.
How should one chase a thousand, and two put ten thousand to flight,.... This is said for the conviction of the Pagan Romans of their folly in behaving strangely, attributing to their gods what belonged to the true God; for since the Jews were more numerous than they, both in Judea, in the times of Titus Vespasian, when the country was subdued by him; and in other parts of the world, in the times of Adrian, when the Jews rose up in vast numbers, greatly superior to the Romans, and yet were conquered; which, allowing the phrase to be hyperbolical, was like one to a thousand, and two to ten thousand: now since this was what was promised to the Jews in case of obedience, that they should in this manner chase their enemies, Leviticus 26:8; it cannot be accounted for that they should in like manner be chased by their enemies, as threatened Isaiah 30:17,
except their rock had sold them, and the Lord had shut them up; that is, unless the Lord, who was their rock and fortress, and in whom they should have trusted as such, had forsaken them, and given them up into their enemies' hands, shut up as they were in the city of Jerusalem in the times of Titus, and afterwards in Bither in the times of Adrian; it is a plain case that this was of God, and not owing to the idols of the Gentiles; see Psalm 44:9; Cocceius and Van Till interpret this of Constantine overcoming Maxentius, Licinius, and Maximinius, whereby the whole Roman empire on a sudden became Christian nominally, when but a little before Dioclesian had erected a trophy with this inscription on it,"the Christian name blotted out;''so that the odds between the Christians and Pagans were as one to a thousand, and two to ten thousand, and the victory therefore must be ascribed to God; this could never have been unless Satan, the great red dragon, had given his kingdom to the beast, which was done by the permission and sovereign will of God; see Revelation 6:14; so those interpreters, but the former sense seems best.
If Israel were wise, it could easily conquer all its foes in the power of its God (vid., Leviticus 26:8); but as it had forsaken the Lord its rock, He, their (Israel's) rock, had given them up into the power of the foe. כּי לא אם is more emphatic or distinct than לא אם only, and introduces an exception which does not permit the desired event to take place. Israel could have put all its enemies to flight were it not that its God had given it entirely up to them (sold them as slaves). The supposition that this had already occurred by no means proves, as Kamphausen believes, "that the poet was speaking of the existing state of the nation," but merely that Moses thinks of the circumstances as certain to occur when the people should have forsaken their God. The past implied in the verbs "sold" and "given up" is a prophetically idea past or present, but not a real and historical one. The assertion of Hupfeld and Kamphausen, that מכר, as used with special reference to the giving up of a nation into the power of the heathen, "belongs to a somewhat later usage of the language," is equally groundless.
One - Israelite. Their rock - Their God, who was their refuge and defence. Sold them - Namely, for bond - slaves, had given themselves up into their enemies hands. Shut them up - As it were in the net which their enemies had laid for them.
*More commentary available at chapter level.