(7) **And he caused** . . .—The fact that the word rendered “decree” in this verse was a technical name for the edicts of Assyrian and Babylonian kings (see Daniel 3:10; Daniel 3:29) would alone vouch for the accurate acquaintance of the author with the customs he describes. But the very form of the royal edict is here preserved. The verse should probably run: *And he caused to be proclaimed, and be published in Nineveh *“*According to the decree of the king and his magnates be it proclaimed that,*” &c. The word “saying” is apparently formal like our “thus saith,” &c.
**And his nobles.**—For this association of the great men with the autocrat, comp. Daniel 6:17. Traces of the custom can also be discovered in Assyrian inscriptions, *e.g*., “I am Assurbanipal king of nations, king of Assyria, Nabu-damiq and Umbadara the great men,” &c. (G. Smith, *Assyrian Discoveries,* p. 413). Ewald thinks the formal “saying” in the edict marks the omission of the names, which in the original would be given.
**Beast.**—The Hebrew word is general, and might include all the domestic animals, but from the addition of “herd nor flock” we must doubtless here confine it to the *horses* and *mules,* &c., which even, according to our ideas, might have their usual gay housings changed to those suited to a time of mourning. “Men think it strange that the horses at Nineveh were covered with sackcloth, and forget how, at the funerals of the rich, black horses are chosen, and are clothed with black velvet” (Pusey). Herodotus (9:24) and Plutarch (Alexander), have both preserved instances in which horses and mules were associated with human beings in the signs of public mourning. The instinct which underlies the custom is a true one. Not only are the destinies of the animals which minister to man’s wants often identical with his own; but there is a *bond of* sympathy between them naturally; and one remarkable feature of this book is the prominence given to this truth. (See Jonah 4:11.)
**Let them not feed. . . .**—Poetically, the beasts are said by Virgil to fast at the death of Daphnis (*Eclog.,* v. 24-28), and in Joel 1:20 their mute appeal against suffering is represented as audible to God. In the horror of the impending ruin of Nineveh, superstition exaggerated the true feeling underlying such representations, and to the belief in the sympathy of the lower animals with man was added the hope that their sufferings would help to appease the wrath of God.
**Let them turn.**—Notice the insistence on a moral change, and the implied contrast, again showing itself, with the formality of Judaism. Even in this repentance the edict does not stop to distinguish beast from man, but includes all, as all were involved in the threatened destruction.
**Violence.**—This is the characteristic of Assyrian manners most frequently noticed in the prophets. (See Nahum 2:11-12; Nahum 3:1; Isaiah 10:13-14.) The cuneiform inscriptions abundantly illustrate this point. Take this for example from an inscription of Tiglath Pileser II.: “Tiglath Pileser, the great king, the powerful king, king of nations, &c, the powerful warrior who in the service of Assur his lord the whole of his haters has trampled on like clay, swept like a flood, and reduced to shadows” (G. Smith, *Assyrian Discoveries,* p. 254).
**In their hands.**—Comp. Psalm 7:3.
**Who can tell** . . .**?**—This sudden recognition of *one* God by a king of Nineveh appears far more striking if contrasted with the long lists of deities usually mentioned in the Assyrian inscriptions, *e.g*., “By command of Assur, Sin, Shamas, Vul, Bel, Nebo, Ishtar of Nineveh, Sarrat-Kitmuri, Ishtar of Arbela, Ninip, Nergal, and Nusku, into Minni I entered and marched victoriously” (from the *Cylinder of Assurbanipal,* Smith, p. 333).
Charles John Ellicott (1819–1905). Public Domain.