This mode of rendering gives a turn to the sense of the passage, which is wholly uncalled for, if not unwarranted by the original: which would be more literally translated: _And affliction shall come over the sea_, &c. But the Jew’s mode of rendering is equally correct, and better accords with the context, thus: _He shall cause trouble to pass in the sea, and shall smite the waves of the sea._ The latter expression amplifying and explaining the former. What is meant by the expressions, the sea, the isles, and the land, is a point of no small importance. In prophetic language, the sea and the isles always signify the western Gentiles, or European nations; while the land signifies Palestine, or the Jewish nation. The Hebrew word ים (or םי) means either the sea or the west. As the sea extends along the whole western coast of Syria, sea and west came to be used synonymously. And as the European nations lay beyond the sea they obtained the name of the isles, or the isles of the Gentiles, as they are called in Gen. x. 5. Mr. Lowth observes, on Isa. xi. 11. “The islands, in the prophetic style, seem particularly to denote the western parts of the world, or the European nations; the west being often called the sea in the Scripture language.” Thus, “_causing affliction, or trouble, to come over the sea_,” and “_smiting the waves of it_,” signify, as the Jew rightly explains, to cause confusion and dismay among the Gentile nations of the west. Verse 11. :והבישו כל מצולות יאור _And all the deeps of the river shall dry up._ That rivers are meant, in prophetic language, to represent the people residing on their borders, appears in various passages. See Isa, viii. 7. “_Now, therefore, behold the Lord bringeth up upon them the waters of the river strong and many, even the king of Assyria and all his glory._” In like manner, the drying up of the Euphrates, is spoken of under the sixth vial in the Revelations, in allusion to the nations bordering upon that river. THE RABBI’S REPLY, AND THE AUTHOR’S REMARKS UPON IT. CHAPTER X. Contending, as the Jew does, that no part of the prophecy relating to the Messiah’s kingdom, has yet been accomplished, he cannot reasonably be expected to offer a particular interpretation of what, according to his view, is still unfulfilled. And, accordingly, his remarks on this chapter are restricted to an occasional correction of the received translation, and a few short explanatory notes; while his reply to my exposition, if reply it can be called, may be comprised in one short sentence, namely, that he considers the whole unaccomplished, and rejects altogether the spiritual exposition, admitting none but the literal.