Isaiah’s Sign-Act Against Trust in Egypt and Cush

Isa 20:5-6 But if Egypt and Ethiopia are thus shamefully humbled, what kind of impression will this make upon those who rely upon the great power that is supposed to be both unapproachable and invincible? “And they cry together, and behold themselves deceived by Ethiopia, to which they looked, and by Egypt, in which they gloried. And the inhabitant of this coast-land saith in that day, Behold, thus it happens to those to whom we looked, whither we fled for help to deliver us from the king of Asshur: and how should we, we escape?

” א י , which signifies both an island and a coast-land, is used as the name of Philistia and Zep 2:5, and as the name of Phoenicia in Isa 23:2, Isa 23:6; and for this reason Knobel and others understand it here as denoting the former with the inclusion of the latter. But as the Assyrians had already attacked both Phoenicians and Philistines at the time when they marched against Egypt, there can be no doubt that Isaiah had chiefly the Judaeans in his mind.

This was the interpretation given by Jerome ( “Judah trusted in the Egyptians, and Egypt will be destroyed” ), and it has been adopted by Ewald, Drechsler, Luzzatto, and Meier. The expressions are the same as those in which a little further on we find Isaiah reproving the Egyptian tendencies of Judah’s policy. At the same time, by “the inhabitant of this coast-land” we are not to understand Judah exclusively, but the inhabitants of Palestine generally, with whom Judah was mixed up to its shame, because it had denied its character as the nation of Jehovah in a manner so thoroughly opposed to its theocratic standing.

Unfortunately, we know very little concerning the Assyrian campaigns in Egypt. But we may infer from Nah 3:8-10, according to which the Egyptian Thebes had fallen (for it is held up before Nineveh as the mirror of its own fate), that after the conquest of Ashdod Egypt was also overcome by Sargon’s army. In the grand inscription found in the halls of the palace at Khorsabad, Sargon boasts of a successful battle which he had fought with Pharaoh Sebech at Raphia, and in consequence of which the latter became tributary to him.

Still further on he relates that he had dethroned the rebellious king of Ashdod, and appointed another in his place, but that the people removed him, and chose another king; after which he marched with his army against Ashdod, and when the king fled from him into Egypt, he besieged Ashdod, and took it. Then follows a difficult and mutilated passage, in which Rawlinson agrees with Oppert in finding an account of the complete subjection of Sebech (Sabako?)

Nothing can be built upon this, however; and it must also remain uncertain whether, even if the rest is correctly interpreted, Isa 20:1 relates to that conquest of Ashdod which was followed by the dethroning of the rebellious king and the appointment of another, or to the final conquest by which it became a colonial city of Assyria. This conquest Sargon ascribes to himself in person, so that apparently we must think of that conquest which was carried out by Tartan; and in that case the words, “he fought against it,” etc.

, need not be taken as anticipatory. It is quite sufficient, that the monuments seem to intimate that the conquest of Samaria and Ashdod was followed by the subjugation of the Egypto-Ethiopian kingdom. But inasmuch as Judah, trusting in the reed of Egypt, fell away from Assyria under Hezekiah, and Sennacherib had to make war upon Egypt again, to all appearance the Assyrians never had much cause to congratulate themselves upon their possession of Egypt, and that for reasons which are not difficult to discover.

At the time appointed by the prophecy, Egypt came under the Assyrian yoke, from which it was first delivered by Psammetichus; but, as the constant wars between Assyria and Egypt clearly show, it never patiently submitted to that yoke for any length of time. The confidence which Judah placed in Egypt turned out most disastrously for Judah itself, just as Isaiah predicted here.

But the catastrophe that occurred in front of Jerusalem did not put an end to Assyria, nor did the campaigns of Sargon and Sennacherib bring Egypt to an end. And, on the other hand, the triumphs of Jehovah and of the prophecy concerning Assyria were not the means of Egypt’s conversion. In all these respects the fulfilment showed that there was an element of human hope in the prophecy, which made the distant appear to be close at hand.

And this element it eliminated. For the fulfilment of a prophecy is divine, but the prophecy itself is both divine and human. The Oracle Concerning the Desert of the Sea (Babylon) - Isa 21:1-10 Ewald pronounces this and other headings to be the glosses of ancient readers ( proph . i. 56, 57). Even Vitringa at first attributed it to the collectors, but he afterwards saw that this was inadmissible.

In fact, it is hardly possible to understand how the expression “desert of the sea” ( midbar - yâm ) could have been taken from the prophecy itself; for yâm cannot signify the south (as though synonymous with negeb ), but is invariably applied to the west, whilst there is nothing about a sea in the prophecy. The heading, therefore, is a peculiar one; and this Knobel admits, though he nevertheless adheres to the opinion that it sprang from a later hand.

But why? According to modern critics, the hand by which the whole massa was written was certainly quite late enough. From Koppe to Knobel they are almost unanimous in asserting that it emanated from a prophet who lived at the end of the Babylonian captivity. And Meier asserts with dictatorial brevity, that no further proof is needed that Isaiah was not the author.

But assuming, what indeed seems impossible to modern critics - namely, that a prophet’s insight into futurity might stretch over hundreds of years - the massa contains within itself and round about itself the strongest proofs of its genuineness. Within itself: for both the thoughts themselves, and the manner in which they are expressed, are so thoroughly Isaiah’s, even in the most minute points, that it is impossible to conceive of any prophecy in a form more truly his own.

And round about itself: inasmuch as the four massa’s (Isa 21:1-10, Isa 21:11-12, Isa 21:13-17; 22), are so intertwined the one with the other as to form a tetralogy, not only through their emblematical titles (compare Isa 30:6) and their visionary bearing, but also in many ways through the contexts themselves. Thus the designation of the prophet as a “watchman” is common to the first and second massa's; and in the fourth , Jerusalem is called the valley of vision, because the watch-tower was there, from which the prophet surveyed the future fate of Babylon, Edom, and Arabia.

And just as in the first, Elam and Madai march against Babylon; so in the fourth (Isa 22:6) Kir and Elam march against Jerusalem. The form of expression is also strikingly similar in both instances (compare Isa 22:6-7, with Isa 21:7). Is it then possible that the first portion of the tetralogy should be spurious, and the other three genuine? We come to the same conclusion in this instance as we did at Isa 13:1.

; and that, most truly, neither from a needless apologetical interest, nor from forced traditional prejudice. Just as the massâ Bâbel rests upon a prophecy against Asshur, which forms, as it were, a pedestal to it, and cannot be supposed to have been placed there by any one but Isaiah himself; so that massa midbar - yâm rests, as it were, upon the pillars of its genuineness, and announces itself velut de tripode as Isaiah's.

This also applies to the heading. We have already noticed, in connection with Isa 15:1, how closely the headings fit in to the prophecies themselves. Isaiah is fond of symbolical names (Isa 29:1; Isa 30:7). And midbar - yâm (desert of the sea) is a name of this kind applied to Babylon and the neighbourhood. The continent on which Babylon stood was a midbâr , a great plain running to the south into Arabia deserta ; and so intersected by the Euphrates as well as by marshes and lakes, that it floated, as it were, in the sea.

The low-lying land on the Lower Euphrates had been wrested, as it were, from the sea; for before Semiramis constructed the dams, the Euphrates used to overflow the whole just like a sea (πελαγίζειν, Herod. i. 184). Abydenus even says, that at first the whole of it was covered with water, and was called thalassa (Euseb. praep . ix. 41). We may learn from Isa 14:23, why it was that the prophet made use of this symbolical name.

The origin and natural features of Babylon are made into ominous prognostics of its ultimate fate. The true interpretation is found in Jeremiah (Jer 51:13; Jer 50:38), who was acquainted with this oracle.

Isa 21:1-2 The power which first brings destruction upon the city of the world, is a hostile army composed of several nations. “As storms in the south approach, it comes from the desert, from a terrible land. Hard vision is made known to me: the spoiler spoils, and the devastator devastates. Go up, Elam! Surround, Maday! I put an end to all their sighing. ” “Storms in the south” (compare Isa 28:21; Amo 3:9) are storms which have their starting-point in the south, and therefore come to Babylon from Arabia deserta ; and like all winds that come from boundless steppes, they are always violent (Job 1:19; Job 37:9; see Hos 13:15).

It would be natural, therefore, to connect mimmidbâr with lachalōph (as Knobel and Umbreit do), but the arrangement of the words is opposed to this; lachalōōph (“pressing forwards”) is sued instead of yachalōph (see Ges. §132, Anm. 1, and still more fully on Hab 1:17). The conjunctio periphrastica stands with great force at the close of the comparison, in order that it may express at the same time the violent pressure with which the progress of the storm is connected.

It is true that, according to Herod. i. 189, Cyrus came across the Gyndes, so that he descended into the lowlands to Babylonia through Chalonitis and Apolloniatis, by the road described by Isidor V. Charax in his Itinerarium , over the Zagros pass through the Zagros-gate (Ptolem. vi. 2) to the upper course of the Gyndes (the present Diyala ), and then along this river, which he crossed before its junction with the Tigris.

But if the Medo-Persian army came in this direction, it could not be regarded as coming “from the desert. ” If, however, the Median portion of the army followed the course of the Choaspes ( Kerkha ) so as to descend into the lowland of Chuzistan (the route taken by Major Rawlinson with a Guran regiment), and thus approached Babylon from the south-east, it might be regarded in many respects as coming mimmidbâr (from the desert), and primarily because the lowland of Chuzistan is a broad open plain - that is to say, a midbâr .

According to the simile employed of storms in the south, the assumption of the prophecy is really this, that the hostile army is advancing from Chuzistan, or (as geographical exactitude is not to be supposed) from the direction of the desert of ed-Dahna , that portion of Arabia deserta which bounded the lowland of Chaldean on the south-west. The Medo-Persian land itself is called “a terrible land,” because it was situated outside the circle of civilised nations by which the land of Israel was surrounded.

After the thematic commencement in Isa 21:1, which is quite in harmony with Isaiah’s usual custom, the prophet begins again in Isa 21:2. Châzuth (a vision) has the same meaning here as in Isa 29:11 (though not Isa 28:18); and châzuth kâshâh is the object of the passive which follows (Ges. §143, 1, b ). The prophet calls the look into the future, which is given to him by divine inspiration, hard or heavy (though in the sense of difficilis , not gravis , câbēd ), on account of its repulsive, unendurable, and, so to speak, indigestible nature.

The prospect is wide-spread plunder and devastation (the expression is the same as in Isa 33:1, compare Isa 16:4; Isa 24:16, bâgad denoting faithless or treacherous conduct, then heartless robbery), and the summoning of the nations on the east and north of Babylonia to the conquest of Babylon; for Jehovah is about to put an end ( hishbatti , as in Isa 16:10) to all their sighing ( anchâthâh , with He raf. and the tone upon the last syllable), i.

e. , to all the lamentations forced out of them far and wide by the oppressor.

Isa 21:1-2 The power which first brings destruction upon the city of the world, is a hostile army composed of several nations. “As storms in the south approach, it comes from the desert, from a terrible land. Hard vision is made known to me: the spoiler spoils, and the devastator devastates. Go up, Elam! Surround, Maday! I put an end to all their sighing. ” “Storms in the south” (compare Isa 28:21; Amo 3:9) are storms which have their starting-point in the south, and therefore come to Babylon from Arabia deserta ; and like all winds that come from boundless steppes, they are always violent (Job 1:19; Job 37:9; see Hos 13:15).

It would be natural, therefore, to connect mimmidbâr with lachalōph (as Knobel and Umbreit do), but the arrangement of the words is opposed to this; lachalōōph (“pressing forwards”) is sued instead of yachalōph (see Ges. §132, Anm. 1, and still more fully on Hab 1:17). The conjunctio periphrastica stands with great force at the close of the comparison, in order that it may express at the same time the violent pressure with which the progress of the storm is connected.

It is true that, according to Herod. i. 189, Cyrus came across the Gyndes, so that he descended into the lowlands to Babylonia through Chalonitis and Apolloniatis, by the road described by Isidor V. Charax in his Itinerarium , over the Zagros pass through the Zagros-gate (Ptolem. vi. 2) to the upper course of the Gyndes (the present Diyala ), and then along this river, which he crossed before its junction with the Tigris.

But if the Medo-Persian army came in this direction, it could not be regarded as coming “from the desert. ” If, however, the Median portion of the army followed the course of the Choaspes ( Kerkha ) so as to descend into the lowland of Chuzistan (the route taken by Major Rawlinson with a Guran regiment), and thus approached Babylon from the south-east, it might be regarded in many respects as coming mimmidbâr (from the desert), and primarily because the lowland of Chuzistan is a broad open plain - that is to say, a midbâr .

According to the simile employed of storms in the south, the assumption of the prophecy is really this, that the hostile army is advancing from Chuzistan, or (as geographical exactitude is not to be supposed) from the direction of the desert of ed-Dahna , that portion of Arabia deserta which bounded the lowland of Chaldean on the south-west. The Medo-Persian land itself is called “a terrible land,” because it was situated outside the circle of civilised nations by which the land of Israel was surrounded.

After the thematic commencement in Isa 21:1, which is quite in harmony with Isaiah’s usual custom, the prophet begins again in Isa 21:2. Châzuth (a vision) has the same meaning here as in Isa 29:11 (though not Isa 28:18); and châzuth kâshâh is the object of the passive which follows (Ges. §143, 1, b ). The prophet calls the look into the future, which is given to him by divine inspiration, hard or heavy (though in the sense of difficilis , not gravis , câbēd ), on account of its repulsive, unendurable, and, so to speak, indigestible nature.

The prospect is wide-spread plunder and devastation (the expression is the same as in Isa 33:1, compare Isa 16:4; Isa 24:16, bâgad denoting faithless or treacherous conduct, then heartless robbery), and the summoning of the nations on the east and north of Babylonia to the conquest of Babylon; for Jehovah is about to put an end ( hishbatti , as in Isa 16:10) to all their sighing ( anchâthâh , with He raf. and the tone upon the last syllable), i.

e. , to all the lamentations forced out of them far and wide by the oppressor.

Isa 21:3-4 Here again, as in the case of the prophecy concerning Moab, what the prophet has given to him to see does not pass without exciting his feelings of humanity, but works upon him like a horrible dream. “Therefore are my loins full of cramp: pangs have taken hold of me, as the pangs of a travailing woman: I twist myself, so that I do not hear; I am brought down with fear, so that I do not see.

My heart beats wildly; horror hath troubled me: the darkness of night that I love, he hath turned for me into quaking. ” The prophet does not describe in detail what he saw; but the violent agitation produced by the impression leads us to conclude how horrible it must have been. Chalchâlâh is the contortion produced by cramp, as in Nah 2:11; tzirim is the word properly applied to the pains of childbirth; na‛avâh means to bend, or bow one’s self, and is also used to denote a convulsive utterance of pain; tâ‛âh , which is used in a different sense from Psa 95:10 (compare, however, Psa 38:11), denotes a feverish and irregular beating of the pulse.

The darkness of evening and night, which the prophet loved so much ( chēshek , a desire arising from inclination, 1Ki 9:1, 1Ki 9:19), and always longed for, either that he might give himself up to contemplation, or that he might rest from outward and inward labour, had bee changed into quaking by the horrible vision. It is quite impossible to imagine, as Umbreit suggests, that nesheph chishki (the darkness of my pleasure) refers to the nocturnal feast during which Babylon was stormed (Herod.

i. 191, and Xenophon, Cyrop . vii. 23).

Isa 21:3-4 Here again, as in the case of the prophecy concerning Moab, what the prophet has given to him to see does not pass without exciting his feelings of humanity, but works upon him like a horrible dream. “Therefore are my loins full of cramp: pangs have taken hold of me, as the pangs of a travailing woman: I twist myself, so that I do not hear; I am brought down with fear, so that I do not see.

My heart beats wildly; horror hath troubled me: the darkness of night that I love, he hath turned for me into quaking. ” The prophet does not describe in detail what he saw; but the violent agitation produced by the impression leads us to conclude how horrible it must have been. Chalchâlâh is the contortion produced by cramp, as in Nah 2:11; tzirim is the word properly applied to the pains of childbirth; na‛avâh means to bend, or bow one’s self, and is also used to denote a convulsive utterance of pain; tâ‛âh , which is used in a different sense from Psa 95:10 (compare, however, Psa 38:11), denotes a feverish and irregular beating of the pulse.

The darkness of evening and night, which the prophet loved so much ( chēshek , a desire arising from inclination, 1Ki 9:1, 1Ki 9:19), and always longed for, either that he might give himself up to contemplation, or that he might rest from outward and inward labour, had bee changed into quaking by the horrible vision. It is quite impossible to imagine, as Umbreit suggests, that nesheph chishki (the darkness of my pleasure) refers to the nocturnal feast during which Babylon was stormed (Herod.

i. 191, and Xenophon, Cyrop . vii. 23).