"Olim truncus eram ficulnus, inutile lignum, Cum faber, incertus scamnum faceretne Priapum, Maluit esse deum. Deus inde ego, furum ariumque Maxima formido." (Hor., _Sat._ i. 8, 1, _sqq._)
Though the idol has the outward semblance of a man, it lacks his distinguishing faculty of speech; it is as dumb as the scarecrow, and as powerless to move from its place; so it has to be borne about on men's shoulders (a mocking allusion to the grand processions of the gods, which distinguished the Babylonian festivals). Will you then be afraid of things that can do neither good nor harm? asks the prophet; in terms that recall the challenge of another, or perchance of himself, to the idols of Babylon: _Do good or do evil, that we may look at each other and see it together_ (Isa. xli. 23).
In utter contrast with the impotence, the nothingness of all the gods of the nations, whether Israel's neighbours or his invaders, stands for ever the God of Israel. _There is none at all like Thee, O Iahweh! great art Thou, and great is Thy Name in might!_ With different vowel points, we might render, _Whence_ (cometh) _Thy like, O Iahvah?_ This has been supported by reference to chap. xxx. 7: _Alas! for great is that day. Whence_ (is one) _like it?_ (_me`ayin?_); but there too, as here, we may equally well translate, _there is none like it_. The interrogative, in fact, presupposes a negative answer; and the Hebrew particle usually rendered _there is not, are not_ (_`ayin, `ên_) has been explained as originally identical with the interrogative _where?_ (_`ayin_, implied in _me`ayin_, "from where?" "whence?" cf. Job. xiv. 10: _where is he?_ = _he is not_). The idiom of the text expresses a more emphatic negation than the ordinary form would do; and though rare, is by no means altogether unparalleled (see Isa. xl. 17, xli. 24; and other references in Gesenius). _Great art Thou and great is Thy Name in might_; that is to say, Thou art great in Thyself, and great in repute or manifestation among men, in respect of _might_, virile strength or prowess (Ps. xxi. 14). Unlike the do-nothing idols, Iahvah reveals His strength in deeds of strength (cf. Exod. xv. 3 _sqq._). _Who should not fear Thee, Thou King of the nations?_ (cf. v. 22) _for Thee it beseemeth_ (= it is Thy due, and Thine only): _for among all the wise of the nations and in all their realm, there is none at all_ (as in ver. 6) _like Thee_. Religious fear is instinctive in man; but, whereas the various nations lavish reverence upon innumerable objects utterly unworthy of the name of deity, rational religion sees clearly that there can be but One God, working His supreme will in heaven and earth; and that this Almighty being is the true "King of the nations," and disposes their destinies as well as that of His people Israel, although they know Him not, but call other imaginary beings their _kings_ (a common Semitic designation of a national god: Ps. xx. 9; Isa. vi. 5, viii. 21). He, then, is the proper object of the instinct of religious awe; all the peoples of the earth owe Him adoration, even though they be ignorant of their obligation; worship is His unshared prerogative.
_Among all the wise of the nations and in all their realm, not one is like Thee!_ Who are the wise thus contrasted with the Supreme God? Are the false gods the reputed wise ones, giving pretended counsel to their deluded worshippers through the priestly oracle? The term "kingdom" seems to indicate this view, if we take "their kingdom" to mean the kingdom of the wise ones of the nations, that is, the countries whose "kings" they are, where they are worshipped as such. The heathen in general, and the Babylonians in particular, ascribed wisdom to their gods. But there is no impropriety from an Old Testament point of view in comparing Iahvah's wisdom with the wisdom of man. The meaning of the prophet may be simply this, that no earthly wisdom, craft or political sagacity, not even in the most powerful empires such as Babylon, can be a match for Iahvah the All-wise, or avail to thwart His purposes (Isa. xxxi. 1, 2). "Wise" and "sagacious" are titles which the kings of Babylon continually assert for themselves in their extant inscriptions; and the wisdom and learning of the Chaldeans was famous in the ancient world. Either view will agree with what follows: _But in one thing they_--the nations, or their wise men--_will turn out brutish and besotted_: (in) _the teaching of Vanities which are wood_. The verse is difficult; but the expression "the teaching (or doctrine) of Vanities" may perhaps be regarded as equivalent to _the idols taught of_; and then the second half of the verse is constructed like the first member of ver. 3: _The ordinances of the peoples are Vanity_, and may be rendered, _the idols taught of are mere wood_ (cf. ver. 3 _b_, ii. 27, iii. 9). It is possible also that the right reading is "foundation" (_mûsad_) not "doctrine" (_mûsar_): _the foundation_ (basis, substratum, substance) _of idols is wood_. (The term "Vanities"--_habalim_--is used for "idols," viii. 19, xiv. 22; Ps. xxxi. 7). And, lastly, I think, the clause might be rendered: _a doctrine of Vanities, of mere wood, it_--their religion--_is_![41] This supreme folly is the "one thing" that discredits all the boasted wisdom of the Chaldeans; and their folly will hereafter be demonstrated by events (ver. 14).