The miraculous power of the Lord shall remove all obstacles to deliverance. These obstacles are represented by the Euphrates and the Red Sea (the tongue of the Sea of Egypt, equivalent to the point of it), with a reference to the fact that, among the countries, in ver. 11, from which Israel is to be delivered, there had been mentioned, _Egypt_, between which and the Holy Land was the Red Sea, and Asshur, situated on the other side of Euphrates. To Euphrates, upon which there will be repeated that which, in ancient times, was done in the case of Jordan, the Prophet assigns, in ver. 15, the last place, on account of ver. 16. The highway in that verse is prepared by the turning off of Euphrates, so that we might put: "And thus," at the beginning of the verse. As regards the destroying, החרום, it is the forced devoting to God of that which would not spontaneously serve Him; compare remarks on Mal. iii. 24. Objects of such devoting can properly be _persons_ only, because they only are capable of spontaneous sanctification to God, as well as of wilful desecration. The fact that it is here transferred to the sea may be accounted for by its being personified. The destruction which is inflicted upon the sea is, in it, inflicted upon the enemies of God thereby represented, inasmuch as it opposes the people of God, and thus, as it were, strives against God.--_With the violence or terror of His wind_, _i.e._, with His violent, terrible wind. There is in this an allusion to Exod. xiv. 21, according to which the Lord dried up the Red Sea by a violent wind. Against _Drechsler_, who thinks of "God's breathing of anger," first, this reference to Exod. xiv. 21, and farther, the circumstance that the רוח appears as something which the Lord has in His hand, are decisive.--In ver. 16 we need not, after "from Asshur," supply the other nations mentioned in ver. 11, which would be unexampled; but Asshur appears as the representative of all the enemies of God. Similarly in Micah also, Asshur is, with evident intention, used typically; comp. Vol. i. p. 515, 516. [Footnote 1: Notwithstanding the arguments which we stated in favour of our proposition, that the original form of the name is נצר. _Ebrard_ without even attempting to refute them, assumes, in favour of a far-fetched conjecture, that the name of the place was written נזרת (_Kritik. d. Ev. Geschichte_ S. 843, 1st Ed.), and has introduced this opinion even into the text of the new edition of _Olshausen's_ Commentary, edited by him. The circumstance that elsewhere _commonly_ the Hebrew ז is, in Greek, rendered by ζ, צ by σ is, in this case, where the special arguments in favour of נצר are so strong, of no consequence.]