33. And Hazor shall be a dwelling for dragons, and a desolation for ever: there shall no man abide there, nor any son of man dwell in it.

33. Et erit Hazor in habitationem draconum, vastitas usque in perpetuum (in seculum;) non habitabit illic vir, et non manebit illic (aut, peregrinabitur in ea) filius hominis.

Here Jeremiah concludes his prophecy concerning the Kedareans; he says that their land would be deserted. The Prophets often make use of this way of speaking, that the land, deserted by its inhabitants, would become the habitation of dragons. And this is more grievous than when the land remains empty; for when dragons succeed men, it is a dreadful thing. Hence, that God's judgment might produce more impression on men's feelings, the Prophets often declare that a deserted place would become the dwelling of dragons. He adds what imports the same thing, A waste shall it be for an age: but vlm, oulam, means perpetuity. And it is added, Not dwell there shall a man, nor live there shall a son of man There seems indeed to be a superfluity of words, for it would have been sufficient in one sentence to say, that the land would be deserted and not inhabited. But he first assigns it to dragons: then he adds that it would be a waste or solitude; and lastly, he says that no one would dwell there, and not only so, but having mentioned man, he adds the son of man Some indeed think that by man the nobles are referred to, and that by the son of man, or Adam, we are to understand the common people, the multitude. But as we have said elsewhere, this is too refined. It is a repetition which increases the effect, though in the second clause he speaks more generally and expresses the thing more clearly, as though he had said, that no one of the human race would become an inhabitant of that land. [47] It now follows, --

---

Footnotes:

[47] The difference in the two clauses is properly distinguished by Blayney, in his version, -- There shall not a man dwell there, Nor shall a son of man sojourn therein. -- Ed