Albert Barnes Commentary Isaiah 46

Bel boweth down — Bel or Belus (בל bēl — from בעל b^e‛ēl — the same as בעל ba‛al) was the chief domestic god of the Babylonians and was worshipped in the celebrated tower of Babylon (Jeremiah 51:44). It was usual to compound names with the titles of the divinities that were worshipped; therefore, this name is often found, as in Bel-shazzar, Bel-teshazzar, Baal-Peor, Baal-zebub, Baal-Gad, and Baal-Berith.

The Greek and Roman writers compare Bel with Jupiter, and the common name they give to this idol is Jupiter Belus (Pliny, Natural History 37.10; Cicero, De Natura Deorum 3.16; Diodorus Siculus 2.8-9). Herodotus (1.181-183) says that in the center of each division of the city of Babylon (for the Euphrates divided the city into two parts) there is a circular space surrounded by a wall. In one of these stands the royal palace, which fills a large and strongly defended space.

The temple of Jupiter Belus, he says, occupies the other division, its huge brass gates perhaps still visible at that time. It is a square building, each side being two furlongs in length. In the middle, a tower rises with a solid depth and height of one furlong, upon which, resting as a base, seven other turrets are built in regular succession.

The ascent on the outside, winding from the ground, continues to the highest tower, and in the middle of the whole structure, there is a convenient resting place. In this temple, there is a small chapel containing a figure of Jupiter in a sitting posture, with a large table before him. These, along with the base of the table and the seat of the throne, are all made of the purest gold. There was formerly in this temple a statue of solid gold, twelve cubits high.

This statue, Herodotus says, was seized by Xerxes, who put the priest to death who tried to prevent its removal.

The upper room of this tower was used as an observatory. The idol Baal, or Bel, was especially the god of the Phoenicians, the Canaanites, the Chaldeans, the Moabites, and some of the surrounding nations. The most common opinion has been that the idol was the sun (see the notes on Isaiah 17:8-9), and that under this name, this luminary received divine honors.

However, Gesenius suggests that the name Jupiter Belus did not refer to Jupiter, ‘the father of the gods,’ but to the planet Jupiter (Stella Jovis). This planet, along with Venus, was regarded as the giver of all good fortune and forms with Venus the most fortunate of all constellations under which sovereigns can be born. Therefore, Gesenius proposes that the planet Jupiter was worshipped under the name Bel, and the planet Venus under the name of Astarte, or Astareth (see Gesenius, Commentary on Isaiah, volume 2, page 333 and following, and Robinson’s Calmet, article ‘Baal’).

The phrase ‘boweth down’ probably means here that the idol sank down, fell, or was removed. It was unable to defend the city and was taken captive and carried away. Jerome translates Confractus est Bel — ‘Bel is broken.’ The Septuagint, Ἔπεσε Βὴλ Epese Bēl — ‘Bel has fallen.’ Perhaps the language alludes to Dagon falling before the ark of God (1 Samuel 5:2–3, 7). The meaning is that even the object of worship—that which was regarded as most sacred among the Chaldeans—would be removed.

Nebo stoopeth — This was an idol-god of the Chaldeans. In the astrological mythology of the Babylonians, according to Gesenius (Commentary on Isaiah, volume 2, page 333 and following), this idol was the planet Mercury. He is regarded as the scribe of the heavens, who records the succession of celestial and terrestrial events, and is related to the Egyptian Hermes and Anubis.

The extensive worship of this idol among the Chaldeans and Assyrians is evident from the many compound proper names found in the Scriptures of which this word forms a part (such as Neb-uchadnezzar and Neb-uzaradan), and also in classical texts (such as Nab-onad and Nab-onassar).

Nebo was, therefore, regarded as an attendant on Bel, or as his scribe. The exact form of the idol is, however, unknown. The word ‘stoopeth’ means that it had fallen down, as when one struck dead falls suddenly to the earth. The language denotes conquest, where even the idols so long worshipped would be thrown down. The scene is in Babylon, and the image in the prophet’s mind is that of the city being taken, and the idols that were worshipped being thrown down by the conqueror and carried away in triumph.

Their idols were upon the beasts — That is, they are laid upon the beasts to be carried away in triumph. It was customary for conquerors to carry away all that was splendid and valuable to grace their triumph on their return. Nothing would be a more certain indication of victory, or a more splendid accompaniment to a triumph, than the gods that the vanquished nations had adored. Thus in Jeremiah 48:7, it is said, And Chemosh shall go forth into captivity, with his priests and his princes together (Compare to Jeremiah 44:3, margin).

Your carriages — That is, they were loaded with the idols that were thus carried off in triumph.

They are a burden — They are so numerous, so heavy, and to be carried so far. This is a very striking and impressive manner of foretelling that the city of Babylon would be destroyed. Instead of using direct prophetic language, the prophet represents himself as seeing heavily loaded animals and wagons moving along slowly, pressed down under the weight of the captured gods to be carried into the distant country of the conqueror. They move out from Babylon, and the caravan, loaded with the idols—the spoils of victory—is seen slowly moving forward to a distant land.

They stoop - Bel, and Nebo, and all the Babylonian gods .

They could not deliver the burden - The word ‘burden’ here probably means the load of metal, wood, and stone of which the idols were composed. The gods whom the Babylonians worshipped had not even power to protect the images made to represent them, which had now become a heavy burden to the animals and wagons carrying them away.

They could not rescue them from the hands of the conqueror; and how unable were they, therefore, to defend those who put their trust in them. The Vulgate renders this, ‘They could not deliver him that carried them.’ The Septuagint, ‘You are carrying them like a burden bound on the weary, faint, and hungry; who are all without strength, and unable to escape from battle; and as for them, they are carried away captives!’

But themselves - Margin, as Hebrew, ‘Their soul.’ The sense is that the gods thus worshipped, so far from being able to defend those who worshipped them, had themselves become captive, and were carried to a distant land.

Listen to me - From this view of the captive gods, the address is now turned to the Jews. The utter vanity of the idols had been set before them; and in view of that, God now addresses his own people and entreats them to put their trust in him. The address he begins with words of great tenderness and endearment, designed to lead them to confide in him as their Father and friend.

And all the remnant - All who were left from slaughter, and all who were carried into captivity to Babylon. The language here is all full of tenderness, and is suited to inspire them with confidence in God. The idols of the pagan, so far from being able to protect their worshippers, were themselves carried away into ignoble bondage, but Yahweh was himself able to carry his people and to sustain them.

Which are carried by me - Like an indulgent father or a tender nurse, he had carried them from the very infancy of their nation. The same image occurs in Deuteronomy 1:31: And in the wilderness, where thou hast seen how that the Lord thy God bare thee, as a man doth bear his son, in all the way that ye went, until ye came into this place. A similar figure occurs in Exodus 19:4: Ye have seen, how I bare you on eagles’ wings, and brought you unto myself (Isaiah 63:9). All this here stands opposed to the idols of the Babylonians. They were unable to protect their people. They were themselves made captive. But God had acted as a father and a protector to his people in all times.

He had sustained and guided them; he had never forsaken them; he had never, like the idol-gods, been compelled to leave them in the power of their enemies. From the fact that he had always, even from the infancy of their nation, thus protected them, they are called on to put their trust in him.

And even to your old age, I am he — or rather, I am the same. I remain, unchangeably, with the same tenderness, the same affection, the same care. In this, the care of God for his people surpasses that of the most tender parent and the kindest nurturer of the young. The care of the parent naturally diminishes as the child reaches adulthood, and the parent is usually taken by death before the son or daughter, who was the object of so much solicitude in infancy and childhood, reaches old age.

But it is not so with God. His people are always the objects of his tender solicitude. Age does not make them less dependent, and experience only teaches them more and more their need of his sustaining grace.

The argument here is that he who had watched over the infancy of his people with so much solicitude would not leave them in the vulnerabilities, infirmities, and trials of the advanced years of their history.

The doctrine is:

1. That his people always need his protection and care.
2. That he will never leave nor forsake them.
3. That he who is the God of infancy and childhood will also be the God of old age, and that he will not leave or forsake his people, who have been the objects of his care and affection in childhood, when they become old.

Although this passage refers primarily to a people or a community as such, I see no reason why the principle should not be regarded as applicable to those who are literally aged.

They need the care of God no less than childhood does. If they have walked in his ways in the vigor and strength of their life, he will not cast them off when they are old and gray-headed. Hoary hairs, therefore, if found in the way of righteousness, may trust in God; and the second childhood of man may find him no less certainly a protector than the first.

To whom will ye liken me - (see the notes at Isaiah 40:18, Isaiah 40:25). The design of this and the following verses is to show the folly of idolatry, and the vanity of trusting in idols. This is a subject that the prophet often dwells on. The argument here is derived from the fact that the idols of Babylon were unable to defend the city, and were themselves carried away in triumph (Isaiah 46:1–2). If so, how vain was it to rely on them! How foolish to suppose that the living and true God could resemble such weak and defenseless blocks!