These are the words of the translation in our Bible; but the sense of them I must acknowledge my inability to unravel. Of what Damascus is to be the rest, or what period is intimated by the adverb of time _when_, I am at a loss to discover. The separation of Hadrach and Damascus by the insertion of a comma between them, evidently owes its origin to the supposed necessity for rendering the word מנחתו (or ותחנמ) _the rest thereof_. But if deriving it from נח (or חנ) or נוח (or חונ) does not afford any intelligible sense, we are naturally led to seek another derivation; and we find one in the verb נחת (or תחנ) _to descend_ or _send down_, which without violating grammatical construction affords a meaning not only intelligible, but in perfect unison with the context. The Hemantiv מ prefixed, gives the _thing sent down_, while the suffix ו _his_, evidently refers to _the Lord_ who sends the vision or denunciation. The English construction, of course, requires it should be rendered _his sending down_, that is, the Lord’s denunciation, _against_ Hadrach and Damascus, as well as the other cities which are mentioned afterwards; for ב here rendered _in_, may with more propriety be rendered _against_ or _upon_. The verb נחת (or תחנ) _to send down_, occurs in Joel iii. 11 and elsewhere: but the writer freely acknowledges that he has no authority for the participial noun with the Hemantiv מ prefixed to signify the thing sent down, or the act of sending down, as the sense seems to require here. He therefore rests this construction solely on the ground of its being grammatically admissible, consonant to analogy, and in accordance with the context, as affording a satisfactory meaning. Let those who are not satisfied with such reasons furnish a better solution of the difficulty. In the next place, there is no necessity for rendering כי (or יכ) _when_, which more frequently signifies _for_; and when so rendered, it will be found to connect together the latter and the former part of the verse. For this, we only require to render the dative ל, as it frequently is rendered in Hebrew, as well as Greek and Latin, to denote _possession_; and the verse will run thus. _For the Lord’s is_, or to the Lord belongs, _the eye of man_; to wit, the eye of the Seer, who receives the vision, _and all the tribes of Israel_, whom the vision chiefly concerns. Making the tribes a genitive case, by inserting _of_ before them, is wholly uncalled for by the text. Verse 2. :וגם חמת תגבל בה צר וצידון כי חכמה מאד _And Hamath also shall border thereby, Tyrus and Sidon though it be very wise._