Bible Commentaries

β) THE ASSYRIAN CAPTIVITY OF EGYPT

Isaiah 20

This chapter, whose date is exactly determined by the historical notices of Isaiah 20:1 in connection with Isaiah 20:3 (comp. the introduction to chapters17–20), is related to chap19, with which it is manifestly contemporaneous, as a completion. Thus chap19 speaks chiefly of the visitations that shall overtake Egypt, by means of catastrophes of its inward political and natural life. But to that conversion of Egypt spoken of Isaiah 19:18 sqq, outward distresses also must contribute. These, according to the political relations that prevailed in the period when chapters Isaiah 19:20 originated, can proceed only from Assyria. At the same time this weighty lesson resulted from these things, that Judah in its then relation to Assyria and Egypt must not rely on Egypt for protection against Assyria.

____________________

1 In the year that ¹Tartan came unto Ashdod, (²when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him), and ³fought against Ashdod, and took it; 2at the same time spake the Lord by ⁴Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go and loose the sackcloth from off thy loins, and put off thy shoe from thy foot, And he did Song of Solomon, walking naked and 3 barefoot. And the Lord said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and barefoot three years for a sign and wonder ⁵ upon Egypt and dupon Ethiopia; 4so shall the king of Assyria lead away ⁶the Egyptians prisoners, and ⁷the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and barefoot, even with their buttocks uncovered, ⁸to the ⁹shame of Egypt 5 And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory 6 And the inhabitant of this ^{10 11}isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation, whither we flee for help to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape?

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Isaiah 20:2. One must carefully note that what follows immediately on the formula of announcement, דבר י׳ ביד־ישׁ׳ לאמר is not something that Jehovah spake by is, but something that He spake to him (לֵךְ וגו). For בְּירַ never has the meaning “in conspcctu,” as some would assume in order to obviate the incongruity between ביר and לֵךְ; it has not this meaning even in 1 Samuel 21:14, and Job 15:23. לֵאמֹר, therefore, as to form connects primarily with the לֵךְ immediately following, but in regard to matter it relates to all that follows. ויאמר י׳ in the beginning of Isaiah 20:3 like לאמר, is subordinate to the more intensive רִּבֶּר, and introduces the second stage of the revelation announced by רִּבֶּר וגו. The expression בְּירַ for the human organ of the divine revelation occurs in Isaiah only here. In Jeremiah, too, it occurs only Isaiah 37:2; Isaiah 50:1.——Note the constr. praegn. in פתחת חשׂק מעל ו׳where the preposition must be connected with a verb understood. Compare Green, § 273, 3.

Isaiah 20:3. שׁלשׁ שׁנימ occasions difficulty. The interpretation is altogether ungrammatical that takes these words in the sense: “in three years shall be fulfilled what this symbolical act signifies.” The words can only be made to relate to הלך, or, according to the accents, to what follows; but in either case must be taken in the sense “for three years.” Regarding the words only grammatically, the nearest meaning that offers is: “like my servant Isaiah has gone three years.” etc. For were it said: “like my servant goes for three years,” why then does it not read הֹלֵךְ? Or if the meaning were: “like my servant will go,” why then does it not read יֵלֵךְ? Although the Hebrew perfect indicates directly only that something actually occurs objectively without reference to the time, still the fact must belong to some time; and if neither an internal nor external sign points to the present nor future, then we are obliged to take the verbal form that designates facta just in the sense of factum, i.e., in the sense of come to pass, done, in respect to time. However some construe הָלַךְ as perfect, but refer שׁלשׁ שׁנים to אות ומפת, so that the sense is: “like my servant has gone naked and barefoot for a type of three years long” (tribus annis completis in exilium ducta erit Aegyptus atque Aethiopia; usque ad illud tempus, quod Isajas semel nudus et discalceatus incessit, typus Esther,” Stade, l. c. p67; thus, too, the Masorets, Jerome, Hitzig, Hendewerk, Knobel). But to this there is a twofold objection [for the second see under the following Exeg. and Crit. in loc.). First: If it were to be expressly said that Isaiah did not for three years go naked, but only that he was to be a sign for three years by once (Stade) or several times repeated going naked, or more exactly, if the typical transaction itself did not last through three years, but was only to obtain as the sign for the continuance of three years, if therefore שׁלשׁ שׁנים is to depend not on הלר but on אות ומופּת, then must the dependence be indicated corresponding to the sense. The mere Accusative then durst not be used. If Isaiah was for three years long a type, then must he three years long go naked. But did he go naked only once or a few times, and were only the typical significance of this going naked to extend to three years, then it must read לְשָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים or אוֹת וּמוֹפֵת שָׁלשׁ שָׁנִים. The latter construction would not be incorrect, as Stade (p68) seems to assume, in as much as אות ומופת, as to sense, form only one notion (comp. Ezekiel 31:16).

Isaiah 20:4. חֲשׂוּפַי is held by Ewald (§ 211, c, Anm. Isaiah 2 : [comp. Green, § 199 c] to be a change from חֲשׂוּפֵּי fixed by the Masorets. Thus, too, שָׂרַי Judges 5:15. Others (Delitzsch, Dietrich) hold this form, like (חוֹרַי Isaiah 19:8), חַלּוֹנַי ( Jeremiah 22:14), גוֹבַי ( Amos 7:1; Nahum 3:17), שַׁרַּי ( Exodus 6:3), for a singular form with a collective signification. Hitzig and Stade regard our word as an archaic ending of the Construct State, of which the punctuators had availed themselves “in order to avoid the disagreeable sound that would be occasioned by the following שֵׁת.” But then they would often have had to resort to this change. It appears to me of course probable that the pointing ־ַי is to be charged to the Masorets. But שֵׁת did not prompt them to this; it was the foregoing singulars עָרוֹם וְיָחֵף. They supposed they must punctuate חשׂופי as singular to correspond with these. Therefore I believe that חשׂופי is to be regarded as a singular like the הֹרַי, etc., named above, but that it is set in the place of the original חֲשׂוּפֵי by tradition only. But ערם ויחף is partly conditioned by Isaiah 20:3, partly it is to be treated as an ideal number ( Isaiah 24:22).——ערות מ׳ is in apposition with חשׂופי שׁ׳.

Isaiah 20:5-6. מַבָּט, that to which one looks (hoping and trusting) occurs in Isaiah only in these two verses. Beside this in Zechariah 9:5.——לעזרה comp. Isaiah 10:3; Isaiah 31:1.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. In the year when the Tartan, i.e. commander-in-chief of king Sargon of Assyria, came against Ashdod to besiege the city—which he also took after a comparatively short siege,—Isaiah received commandment from the Lord to take off his garment made of bad sack linen and his sandals, and to go about naked and barefoot ( Isaiah 20:1-2). For the incredible thing shall happen that the Egyptians and Ethiopians, shall be compelled to go into captivity naked and barefoot, like Isaiah goes about, ( Isaiah 20:3-4). Thereupon all inhabitants of the sea-board of Palestine, will, with terror and shame, be sensible how wrong they were to confide in the power and glory of Ethiopia and Egypt ( Isaiah 20:5). They will say: Thus it has gone with the power from whom we expected protection; how now shall it go with us? ( Isaiah 20:6).

2. In the year——barefoot.

Isaiah 20:1-2. According to the testimony of Assyrian monuments, Tartan is not a proper name, but an appellative. It is the “Assyrian official name for the commander-in-chief.” In Assyrian the word sounds tur-ta- Numbers, and is, to the present, of unknown derivation. On the Assyrian list of regents that is communicated by Schrader (Die Keilinschriften u. das A. T, Giessen, 1872, p 323 sqq.) it reads (obverse 9): “Murdukiluya, Tartan, to the city Gozan (obv38); Samsulu, Tartan, to Armenia (obv48); Samsulu, Tartan, to the city Surat (overse19); Samsulu, Tartan, in the land ( Revelation 32); Nabudaninanni, Tartan, to the city Arpad.” Thus the ordering of these high officers to their various posts of administration is designated. The word “Tartan” occurs again in the Old Testament, only 2 Kings 18:17.——As regards Sargon, it is now settled by documentary proof that Salmanassar and Sargon are not one person. The Assyrian canon of regents, which the great work of inscriptions by Rawlinson, Vol. III, communicates in amended form (comp. Schrader, l. c., p317) contains as fifth Eponyme of that administration that followed Tuklat-habal-asar, i.e., Tiglath-Pileser, the name Sal-ma- Numbers -âsir (another form Sal-man-âsir): and Rawlinson (Athenaeum, 1867, No2080, p304, comp. Schrader in Stud. and Krit., 1872, IV. p737) remarks on this: “Salmanassar IV, (for there were three older Salmanassars) ascended the throne in the year727 B. C, for which year there was already an Eponyme established, so that he could only enter on his Archonship in723.” But Sargon came to the administration in the course of the year722 B. C. He is mentioned in the Old Testament only in our passage—whereas the monuments offer just about his reign the richest results. His name in Assyrian is Sarrukin, which by the Assyrians themselves, is construed partly as Sarrukin, i.e. “mighty the king,” or “the right king,” partly as Sarruakin, i.e. “He (God) appointed the king” (comp. יְהוֹיָבִין). Sargon is the builder of North Nineveh or Dur-Sarrukin, now Khorsabad, whose monuments, with their inscriptions of the most various sorts, are a most valuable source of historical information (comp. Schrader, Keilinschriften, p256 sqq.). The following is the account of the conquest of Ashdod as the Khorsabad inscription gives it according to Schrader’s (l. c., p259 sqq.) translation. “Azuri, king of Ashdod, hardened his heart to pay no tribute and sent demands to the princes of his neighborhood to revolt from Assyria. Accordingly I did vengeance and changed his government over the inhabitants of his territory. Achimit, his brother, I set over them in the government in his place. The Syrians, that meditated revolt, despised his dominion and raised up Iaman over themselves, who had no claim to the throne, and who, like those, refused to own the dominion. In the burning wrath of my heart I did not assemble my whole power, took no concern for baggage. With my men of war, who separated not themselves from me behind the raising of my arms, I advanced on Ashdod. That Iaman, when he perceived the approach of my army from far, fled to a region (?) of Egypt, which lay on the borders of Meroe; not a trace of him was to be seen. Ashdod, Gimt-Asdudim (?) I besieged, took it; his gods, his wife, his sons, the treasures, possessions, valuables of his palace, along with the inhabitants of his land I appointed to captivity. Those cities I restored; I colonized there the inhabitants of the lands that my hands had conquered, that are in the midst of the East; I made them like the Assyrians; they rendered obedience. The king of Meroe, who in the midst. … of a desert region, on a path. … whose fathers since remote times down to (this time) had not sent their ambassadors to my royal ancestors, to entreat peace for himself: the might of Merodach (overpowered him), a mighty fear came over him, fear seized him. In bonds … iron chains he laid him (Iaman); he directed his steps toward Assyria and appeared before me.” If we compare the annals of Sargon, which register year by year the deeds of this king, we find that in the year of his beginning to reign (722), which is not reckoned as his first year, he conquered Samaria; in the second year (720) he conquered king Sevech of Egypt in the battle of Raphia and took prisoner king Hanno of Gaza; in the eleventh year (711) he made war on Azuri of Ashdod and conquered the city, after which the king of Ethiopia sued for peace (Schrader, l. c., p 264 sq.). In all, Sargon reigned seventeen years (until705). The monuments and the Prophet mutually complete one another. If from the former we see the occasion, the nearer circumstances and the time of the expedition against Ashdod, the Prophet, on the other hand, informs us that it was not Sargon himself that conducted the undertaking, as might appear from the monuments. It was the constant usage of those Asiatic potentates, to which there are only a few exceptions, to register the deeds of the leaders of their armies as their own on the monuments. Comp. Schrader, Stud. u. Krit, 1872, IV. p743. Moreover from the contents of the Khorsabad inscription it is seen that Ashdod was not at that time visited for the first by the Assyrians, as also on the other hand it appears that Egypt had already experienced emphatically the might of the Assyrian arm. For without any campaign, merely out of fear of that arm, the Egyptian-Ethiopian king surrendered the fugitive Iaman. As regards the time, our prophecy, according to the inscription, falls in the year711, thus in the eleventh year of king Sargon’s reign. The siege of Ashdod, for which later Psammetichus required twenty-five years (Herod2, 157), appears not to have lasted long at that time. The capture followed, according to the inscriptions (see above), in the same year. Perhaps the divided state of the inhabitants of Ashdod was to blame for this speedy capture. That there was an Assyrian party among them appears from the inscription communicated above.

The phrase וַיִּלָּֽחֶם וגו, and he fought against, etc., is parenthetical. As to the sense, it is in so far an historical anticipation that the taking did not follow after what is related in Isaiah 20:2. But in relation to Isaiah 20:3, that phrase is no anticipation. For the meaning of the typical action, if my interpretation of “three years” is correct, can only have been signified three years later. Consequently the entire chapter can not have been written earlier than three years after the “coming of the Tartan” mentioned in Isaiah 20:1. In as much as this “coming of the Tartan” is taken as the point of departure for the course of events, while the conquest is only mentioned in parenthesis, as a side affair, the Prophet likely received the command of Isaiah 20:2, about the time of that “coming,” therefore before the capture. By implication, therefore, there lay in the command at the same time a prediction of that conquest of Ashdod. For the conquest of Egypt presupposes the taking of the outworks. Therefore the point of the prophecy also is directed against Egypt.

At the same time is related to “In the year that the Tartan came” as a wider sphere, as certainly as the notion עֵת is more comprehensive than the notion שָׁנָה. The following contains indeed, information concerning two facts: first concerning the command to go naked, and second, concerning the interpretation that followed after three years. To these refer those two dates, the narrower and the broader, as a matter of course, the first date corresponding to the first fact and the second to the second fact. Therewith is closely connected that the sentence “spake the Lord … saying,” introduces the entire revelation contained in what follows. (See under Text. and Gram.).

It is not accidental that Isaiah is called here by his complete name, Isaiah the son of Amoz. For this happens, beside the present, only Isaiah 1:1 and Isaiah 2:1, therefore only in the first and second introduction; then Isaiah 13:1 (in the beginning of the prophecies against the nations) and Isaiah 37:21, where is related the comforting reply that Isaiah was the means of giving to Hezekiah after the threatening of Sennacherib. By the designation of the Prophet as “the son of Amoz” is signified, as appears to me, that there exists a contrast between this name and what is related of Isaiah in this chapter. It is likely no error to assume that a “son of Amoz” was a man of importance. And this man of noble descent must for three years, when he let himself be seen publicly, go about like a wretched prisoner in the utmost scanty clothing. For that Isaiah went wholly naked is not conceivable. Anciently, indeed, one was regarded as naked who took off the upper garment (comp. nudus ara, sere nudus in Virgil, Georg. I:299; Petron92; John 21:7; Herz. R. Ency. VII, p725). We observe from this passage that Isaiah constantly wore a sack, as chief and upper garment, i.e. a sack-like garment and made of sackcloth. The sack-garment was sign of deep mourning and repentance generally ( Isaiah 3:24; Isaiah 15:3; Genesis 37:34; Daniel 9:3; Matthew 11:21, and often. It was variously worn: partly next to the skin ( 1 Kings 21:27), partly over the under-garment, the כְּתֹנֶת “tunic,” as was the case, e.g. with is, and as appears generally to have been a prophet’s costume. For, according to 2 Kings 1:8, Elijah wore a hairy garment with a leather girdle, which clothing, Zechariah 13:4, is described as a prophet’s costume generally. John the Baptist, too, wore it, certainly in special imitation of Elijah ( Matthew 3:4; comp. Hebrews 11:37; Revelation 11:3). Now when Isaiah received command to take off the sack garment and his sandals, it was that he should make himself a living symbol of the extremest ignominy, and of the deepest misery. Not to Judah, however, but to Egypt is this sorrowful fate announced. Judah is only to draw from it the lesson that it must not lean on Egypt for support. For this was the great and ruinous error of the time of Hezekiah, that men supposed they could only find protection against Assyria in Egypt. Against this the Prophet strives earnestly in chapters28–32.

3. And the LORD said——we escape.

[On the construction of “three years,” see under Text. and Gram.; also for a grammatical objection to the sense: “like my servant has gone naked and barefoot as a three years sign,” etc. A further objection is as follows.—Tr.] If the typical meaning of the sign was to remain in force only three years, then, too, the fulfilment must actually follow after three years, or the prophecy prove to be false. For what can this mean: the going naked of the Prophet shall be three years long a sign? Only this: after three years the type ceases to be type, and becomes fulfilment. If that does not come to pass, then the sign was an erroneous one and misleading. It is no use here to regard the number three as a round number that is only to be understood “summatim” (Stade, p67). For the measures of time of fulfilment, in consequence of the imperfection of our human knowledge about the real length of historical periods, or because of the difficulty of knowing the points of beginning and ending, may very well be represented as only an approximation. But a measure of time which is named as an earnest pledge of a future transaction, must not prove to be incorrect, if the earnest itself is not to be found treacherous. But Egypt was not conquered by the Assyrians three years after the siege of Ashdod, but much later, as will be seen immediately. Therefore the Prophet cannot have proposed a three years validity of that sign. But he went three years naked and barefoot, in order to set before the eyes of his people very emphatically and impressively the image of how wretched Egypt had become. And only after three years followed the interpretation for the same reason. For three years the men of Judah and Jerusalem were to meditate and inquire: why does the Prophet go about in scanty and wretched garb? When at length after three years they learned: this happened for the purpose of parading before your eyes the misery of Egypt conquered by Assyria,—then they could measure the worth and importance of the warning that the Prophet gave them by what it cost him to give it. For the Egyptian policy was the fundamental error of the reign of Hezekiah through its whole extent (comp. the Introduction to chapters28–33). The siege of Ashdod, that key to the land of Egypt, was assuredly a fitting event, for letting this warning sign begin. And if about the year708 the interpretation followed, that was the time, too, when Sargon’s rule drew near its end and that of Sennacherib drew near. It was the time when the alliance with Egypt more and more ripened, and when the warning of the Prophet must become ever more pressing.

Sign and wonder is a sort of Hendiadys, in as much as to the first notion a second is co-ordinated, that properly is only something subordinate to that first: sign and portent for portentous sign. In as far as the nakedness of the Prophet represented the misery of the Egyptians generally, it is a sign of it; but in as far as it represented this misery in advance as something future it is a portentous sign.

To the present, nothing definite is known of any invasion of Egypt by the Assyrians. The Assyrian monuments, however, tell us that the kings Esarhaddon and Asurbanipal (Sardanapalus) conquered Egypt. The first on a brick inscription (Schrader, l. c. p210) calls himself: “king of the kings” of Egypt; and his son Asurbanipal says in his cylinder inscription (Schrader l. c. 212) “Esarhaddon—my progenitor went down and penetrated into the midst of Egypt. He gave Tirhaka king of Ethiopia a defeat, destroyed his military power. Egypt and Ethiopia he conquered; countless prisoners he led forth,” etc. Asurbanipal himself seems to have prepared a still worse fate for the Egyptians under Tirhaka’s successor, Rud-Amon. For he relates the following in one of his inscriptions (Schrader, l. c. 288): “Trusting in Asur, Sin and the great gods, my lords, they (my troops) brought on him in a broad plain a defeat and smote his troop forces. Undamana (Rud-Amon) fled alone, and went to No, his royal city (Thebes). In a march of a month and ten days they moved after him over pathless ways, took that city in its entire circuit, purged it away like chaff. Gold, silver, the dust of their land, drawn off metal, precious stones, the treasure of his palace, garments of Berom (?) and Kum, great horses, men and women, … pagi and ukupi the yield of their mountains in countless quantity, they bore forth out of it, appointed them to captivity; to Nineveh, my seat of dominion they brought them in peace, and they kissed my feet.” Comp. too, ibid. p290. As, according to the Apisstelen Tirhaka died in the year664, Schrader fixes the date of this conquest of Thebes about the year663 b. c. This monumental notice is of great importance for the understanding of Nahum 3:8-11, and partly, too, for Isaiah 19 and for our passage. From this, as also from the other Assyrian communications cited above, we learn that our prophecy, given in the year708 received a double fulfilment: one in the time of Asarhaddon, who reigned from 681 to668, the other by means of Asurbanipal about the year663. Therefore, not after three years, but in the course of the fourth and fifth decade after its publication was it fulfilled

Egypt’s shame [see under Text. and Gram.). Did not the Prophet, who for his own person assuredly wore only the lightest Israelitish costume, have here in mind, perhaps, those costumes of the common Egyptians, that allowed the form to appear prominent, which, seen in foreign lands, were well fitted to provoke scorn for Egypt? Comp. e.g. the illustrations in Wilkinson’s, The ancient Egyptians.

It is plain that in Isaiah 20:6 the Prophet means the Israelites and their neighbors. It is a sign of displeasure and discontent when one addresses a person that is present in the third person. The expression הָאִי “the isle” in Isaiah 20:6 is to be noted. The expression (comp. the singular Isaiah 23:2; Isaiah 23:6) is nowhere else used of the Holy land. But the Prophet also means, not merely this, but the entire coast of Palestine, which, because אִי is not a proper name, but appellative, he can very well call אִי. For, as the conquest of Ashdod itself and the preceding events (comp. the Sargon Inscription, Schrader, p76) testify, the Phœnicians also, and the Philistines, who shared with Israel in the possession of the coast, were become a prey to the Assyrian power.

When the strong power of Egypt and Ethiopia had proved too weak to bear the onset of Assyria, then, indeed, might the anxious thought arise in the hearts of the smaller nations that had joined themselves to Egypt: how is it now possible that we can be saved? Stade is of the opinion that אִי, “the isle, or coast” means merely the city Ashdod, and that Isaiah 20:6 contains the words of the fugitive inhabitants of Ashdod, especially of Iaman. After the overthrow of Egypt the exclamation is put in the mouth of these: “quomodo nos effugere poteramus,” (p43). But the assumption that the conquered inhabitants of the אִי could not say: “how shall we be saved” is erroneous. They were indeed conquered; but as long as, still dwelling in their land, they saw trains of captives led past them, they are still in possession of their land, and can hope for a favorable turn of fortune, and the shaking off of the foreign yoke. Only the captive carried into exile is finally without hope. Only this final and greatest degree of misfortune do the inhabitants of the אִי have in mind when they exclaim, “how shall we escape?”

DOCTRINAL AND ETHICAL

1. On Isaiah 17:1-3. “There are no makers of breaches in city and wall stronger than the sins of the inhabitants. When these strengthen and multiply themselves, then entire cities, well built fall over them, and become heaps of stones; as is to be seen in the case of Jericho, Nineveh, Babylon and Jerusalem itself. Therefore let no one put his trust in fortifications.”—Cramer.

2. On Isaiah 17:7-8. “Potuit hic,” etc. “It may be objected here, are not the ark of the covenant and the temple in Jerusalem also work of men’s hands? But the theological canon here is, that in every work regard must be had whether there is a word of God for it or not. Therefore such works as are done by God’s command, those God does by means of us as by instruments. Thus those are called works of the law that are done by the law’s command. But such works as are done by no command of God are works of our own hands, and because they are without the word of God, they are impious and condemned, especially if the notion of righteousness attaches to them, on which account, also, they are reproved here.”—Luther.

3. On Isaiah 17:8 (האשׁרים); Vitringa proposes the conjecture that Osiris is to be derived from אשׁר, which the Egyptians may have pronounced Oser or Osir. And indeed he would have us take as the fundamental meaning of the word, either “beatus,” (אָשֵׁר), or combine it with שׁוּר “to look,” so that Osiris would be as Sun-god, the all seeing, sharp looking (πολυόφδαλμος). אשׁרה then, as feminine of אשׁר, would be Isis!

4. On Isaiah 17:10. “Si hanc,” etc. “If so fearful a punishment followed this fault, thou seest what we have to hope for Germany, which not only forgets God, but despises, provokes, persecutes and abominates Him.”—Luther.

5. On Isaiah 17:14. “Although the evening is long for us, we must still have patience, and believe assuredly, sorrow is a forerunner of joy, disgust a forerunner of delight, death a forerunner of life.” Cramer.

6. On18 Boettcher (Neue exegetische kritische Aehrenl. II, p129) calls this chapter, “exceeding difficult, perhaps the most difficult in the entire Old Testament.” And in fact from the earliest to the most recent times expositors go asunder in the most remarkable manner in regard to the object and sense of the prophecy. Jerome and Cyril referred the prophecy to Egypt. Others, but in different senses, referred it to Judea. Eusebius of Cesarea held the view that, as Jerome says on our passage, “prophecy in the present chapter is directed against the Jews and Jerusalem, because in the beginning of Christian faith they sent letters to all nations lest they might accept the sufferings of Christ.” “Cocceius teaches that Judah is that land shadowed with wings, which (for he refers אשׁר to wings) are beyond the rivers of Ethiopia” (Vitringa). Raschi and Kimchi, likewise, refer the prophecy to the Jews, but they see in Isaiah 20:6 the overthrow of Gog and Magog, and understand the promised deliverance to refer to that greatest of all that would take place by means of the Messiah. Also Von Hofmann (Schriftbew. II, 2 p215 sqq.) explains the passage to refer to “the return of the departed Israel from the remotest regions and by the service of nations of the world themselves, after that they shall have learned that great act of Jehovah and therewith the worth of His people and of His holy places.” Others like Pellican think of the Roman Empire. Arius Montanus even casts his eyes over “to the new world converted to Christ by the preaching of the gospel and by the arms of Spain” (Vitringa).

7. On Isaiah 19:1 b. “The passage recalls the myth concerning Typhon, which represents the Hyksos, who formerly coming from Asia subdued Egypt. The Egyptian gods were afraid (according to a later Greek tradition, which explained the Egyptian heads of beasts as masks, comp. Diestel in the Zeitschrift f. histor. Theol, 1860, 2, p178) of Typhon and hid themselves (Plut. De Isid. et Osir, cap. 72); they resigned the wreaths when Typhon had received the kingdom (Athen15:25, p680); they assumed animal forms (Apollos I:6, 3; Ovid Metam. V:325 sqq.; Hygin. Fab. 196). According to Manetho in Josephus (c. Apion I:26) king Amenophis, who was threatened by Palestinians, carefully concealed the gods.

Other prophets, just as Isaiah does, announce destruction against the Egyptian idols from Jahve ( Jeremiah 43:13; Jeremiah 46:25; Ezekiel 30:13; comp. Exodus 12:12; Numbers 33:4)” Knobel.

8. On Isaiah 19:5 sqq. If nature and history have one Lord, who turns hearts like water courses ( Proverbs 21:1) and the water courses like hearts ( Psalm 33), then we need not wonder if both act in harmony, if, therefore, nature accompanies history as, so to speak, a musical instrument accompanies a song.

9. On Isaiah 19:11. “This was the first argument of the impious in the world against the pious, and will be also the last: for the minds of the ungodly are inflated with these two things, the notion of wisdom and the glory of antiquity. So the diatribe of Erasmus is nothing else than what is written here: I am the son of the ancients. For he names the authority of the Fathers. The prophets contended against this pride, and we to-day protest against it.” Luther.

10. On Isaiah 19:13 sqq. “Where one will not let the outward judgments of God tend to his improvement, there is added the judgment of reprobation, in such a way that even natural prudence and boldness are taken away from those that are the most prudent and courageous. All this does the anger of the Lord of Hosts bring about.”—Tübingen Bibel bei Starke.

11. On Isaiah 19:16-17. The servile fear of those that have hitherto not at all known God may become a bridge to that fear which is child-like. “The fear of the Lord is the beginning of Wisdom of Solomon,” Psalm 111:10.

12. On Isaiah 19:19-22. The Prophet here casts a penetrating and clear look into the future of Egypt. Although the several forms that he depicts make the impression of those forms which, standing in the midst of a sea of mist, rise on an elevated site above the mist, whose absolute distance cannot be exactly made out, still particular traits are remarkably fitting and exact.

13. On Isaiah 19:23-25. One sees here plainly that the Prophet regards Egypt, Israel and Assyria as the chief lands of the earth, whose precedence is so unconditionally the measure of all the rest that they do not even need to be mentioned. Such is in general the prophetic manner of contemplating history. It sees only the prominent and decisive points, so as to overleap great regions of territory and periods of time. Comp. Daniel’s Weltreiche ii 31 sqq.; Isaiah 7:3 sqq.

14. On20 The office of prophet was hard and severe. Such a servant of God must renounce every thing, yield himself to every thing, put up with every thing, let any thing be done with him. He must spare himself no indignity, no pain, no trouble. He must fear nothing, hope nothing, have and enjoy nothing. With all that he was and had he must be at the service of the Lord, unconcerned as to what men might think or approve. Comp. Jeremiah 15:19 sqq.; Jeremiah 16:2; Jeremiah 20:7 sqq.; Ezekiel 4:24, 15 sqq.

Footnotes: