that was at other times called On (old Egyptian anu). Cyril], however, explains even the latter thns, "£lv Is sari kxtxvtov; 6 fato; (" On, according to their interpretation, is the sun"), which is so far true according to Lauth, that Ain, Oin, Oni, signifies the eye as an emblem of the sun; and from this, the tenth month, which marks the return of the sun to the equinoctial point, derives its name of Pa-ord, Pa-one, Pa-uni. It may possibly be with reference to this that Heliopolis is called Ain es-sems in Arabic (see Arnold, Chrestom. Arab, p. 56 s.)- Edrisi (iii. 3) speaks of this Ain es-sems as " the country-seat of Pharaoh, which may God curse;" just as Ibn el-Faraun is a common expression of contempt, which the Arabs apply to the Coptic fellahs.
or obelisks (see Jer. xliii. 13), which were standing there on the spot where Ea was worshipped. Vers. 19, 20. " In that day there stands an altar consecrated to Jehovah in the midst of the land of Egypt) and an obelisk near the border of the land consecrated to Jehovah. And a sign and a witness for Jehovah of hosts is this in the land of Egypt: when they cry to Jehovah for oppressors. Be will send them a helper and champion, and deliver them." This is the passage of Isaiah (not ver. 18) to which Onias IV. appealed, when he sought permission of Ptolemseus Philometor to build a temple of Jehovah in Egypt. He built such a temple in the nomos. of Heliopolis, 180 stadia (22£ miles) to the north-east of Memphis (Josephus, Bell vii. 10, 3), and on the foundation and soil of the o-^vpcofia in Leontopolis, which was dedicated to Bubastis {Ant. xiii. 3, 1, 2).1 This temple, which was altogether unlike the temple of Jerusalem in its outward appearance, being built in the form of a castle, and which stood for more than two hundred years (from 160 B.C. to a.d. 71, when it was closed by command of Vespasian), was splendidly furnished and much frequented; but the recognition of it was strongly contested both in Palestine and Egypt. It was really situated " in the midst of the land of Egypt." But it is out of the question to seek in this temple for the fulfilment of the prophecy of Isaiah, from the simple fact that it was by Jews and for Jews that it was erected. And where, in that case, would the obelisk be, which, as Isaiah prophesies, Was to stand on the border of Egypt, i.e. on the side towards the desert and Canaan? The altar was to be " a sign" (oth) that there were worshippers of Jehovah in Egypt; and the obelisk a " witness" (ed) that Jehovah had proved Himself, to Egypt's
1 We are acquainted with two cities called Leontopolis, viz. the capital of the W077105 called by its name, which was situated between the Busiritic and the Tanitic nomoi; and a second between Herdon-polis and Magdolon (see Brugsch, Geogr. i. 262). The Leontopolis of Josephus, however, must have been another, or third. It may possibly have derived its name, as Lauth conjectures, from the fact that the goddess Bast (from which comes Boubastos, House of Bast) was called Pacht when regarded in her destructive character (Todtenbucli, 164, 12). The meaning of the name is " lioness," and, as her many statues show, she was represented with a lion's head. At the same time, the boundaries of the districts fluctuated, and the Heliopolitan Leontopolis of Josephus may have originally belonged to the Bubastic district.
salvation, to be the God of the gods of Egypt. And now, if they who erected this place of worship and this monument cried to Jehovah, He would show Himself ready to help them; and they would no longer cry in vain, as they had formerly done to their own idols (ver. 3). Consequently it is the approaching conversion of the native Egyptians that is here spoken of. The fact that from the Grecian epoch Judaism became a power in Egypt, is certainly not unconnected with this. But we should be able to trace this connection more closely, if we had any information as to the extent to which Judaism had then spread among the natives, which we do know to have been by no means small. The therapeuto? described by Phila, which were spread through all the nomoi of Egypt, were of a mixed Egypto-Jewish character (vid. Philo, Opp. ii. p. 474, ed. Man gey). It was a victory on the part of the religion of Jehovah, that Egypt was covered with Jewish synagogues and coenobia even in the age before Christ. And Alexandria was the place where the law of Jehovah was translated into Greek, and thus made accessible to the heathen world, and where the religion of Jehovah created for itself those forms of language and thought, under which it was to become, as Christianity, the religion of the world. And after the introduction of Christianity into the world, there were more than one mazzebah (obelisk) that were met with on the way from Palestine to Egypt, even by the end of the first century, and more than one mizbeach (altar) found in the heart of Egypt itself. The importance of Alexandria and of the monasticism and anachoretism of the peninsula of Sinai and also of Egypt, in connection with the history of the spread of Christianity, is very well known.
When Egypt became the prey of Islam in the year 640, there was already to be seen, at all events in the form of a magnificent prelude, the fulfilment of what the prophet foretells in vers. 21, 22: u And Jehovah makes Himself known to the Egyptians, and the Egyptians know Jehovah in that day; and they serve with slain-offerings and meat-offerings, and vow vows to Jehovah, and pay them. And Jehovah smites Egypt, smiting and healing; and if they return to Jehovah, He suffers Himself to be entreated, and heals them." From that small commencement of five cities, and a solitary altar, and one solitary obelisk, it lias now come to this: Jehovah extends the knowledge of Himself to the whole of Egypt (JTlfo, reflective se cognoscendum Jarc, or neuter innotescere), and throughout all Ei^ypt there arises the knowledge of God, which soon shows itself in acts of worship. This worship is represented by the prophet, just as we should expect according to the Old Testament view, as consisting in the offering of bleeding and bloodless, or legal and free-will offerings: TOJp., viz. nJn^nKj so that TO is construed with a double accusative, as in Ex. x. 26, cf. Gen. xxx. 29; or it may possibly be used directly in the sense of sacrificing, as in the Phoenician, and like nb'V in the Thorah; and even if we took it in this sense, it would yield no evidence against Isaiah's authorship (compare ch. xxviii. 21, xxxii. 17). Egypt, though converted, is still sinful; but Jehovah smites it, " smiting and healing " (ndgoph verdpho\ compare 1 Kings xx. 37), so that in the act of smiting the intention of healing prevails; and healing follows the smiting, since the chastisement of Jehovah leads it to repentance. Thus Egypt is now under the same plan of salvation as Israel (e.g. Lev. xxvi. 44, Deut. xxxii. 36).
Asshur, as we already know from ch. xviii., is equally humbled; so that now the two great powers, which have hitherto only met as enemies, meet in the worship of Jehovah, which unites them together. Ver. 23. " In that day a road will run from Egypt to Asshur, and Asshur comes into -Egypt, and Egypt to Asshur; and Egypt worships (Jehovah) with Asshur" riK is not a sign of the accusative, for there can be no longer any idea of the subjection of Egypt to Asshur: on the contrary, it is a preposition indicating fellowship; and tfiajj is used in the sense of worship, as in ver. 21. Friendly intercourse is established between Egypt and Assyria by the fact that both nations are now converted to Jehovah. The road of communication runs through Canaan.
Thus is the way prepared for the highest point of all, which the prophet foretells in vers. 24, 25: " In that day will Israel be the third part to Egypt and Asshur, a blessing in the midst of the earth, since Jehovah of hosts blesseth them thus: Blessed be thou, yiy people Egypt; and thou Asshur, the work of my hands; and thou Israel, mine inheritance." Israel is added to the covenant between Egypt and Asshur, so that it becomes a tripartite covenant in which Israel forms the "third part"
(shelishiyydh, tertia pars, like ' 'asiriyydh, decima pars, in cli. vi. 13). Israel has now reached the great end of its calling — to be a blessing in " the midst of the earth " (VTcereb hadretz, in the whole circuit of the earth), all nations being here represented by Egypt and Assyria. Hitherto it had been only to the disadvantage of Israel to be situated between Egypt and Assyria. The history of the Ephraimitish kingdom, as well as that of Judah, clearly proves this. If Israel relied upon Egypt, it deceived itself, and was deceived; and if it relied on Assyria, it only became the slave of Assyria, and had Egypt for a foe. Thus Israel was in a most painful vise between the two great powers of the earth, the western and the eastern powers. But how will all this be altered now! Egypt and Assyria become one in Jehovah, and Israel the third in the covenant. Israel is no longer the only nation of God, the creation of God, the heir of God; but all this applies to Egypt and Assyria now, as well as to Israel. To give full expression to this, Israel's three titles of honour are mixed together, and each of the three nations receives one of the choice names, — nachali, u my inheritance," being reserved for Israel, as pointing back to its earliest history. This essential equalization of the heathen nations and Israel is no degradation to the latter. For although from this time forward there is to be no essential difference between the nations in their relation to God, it is still the God of Israel who obtains this universal recognition, and the nation of Israel that has become, according to the promise, the medium of blessing to the world.
Thus has the second half of the prophecy ascended step by step from salvation to salvation, as the first descended step by step from judgment to judgment. The culminating point in ver. 25 answers to the lowest point in ver. 15. Every step in the ascending half is indicated by the expression a in that day." Six times do we find this sign-post to the future within the limits of vers. 16-25. This expression is almost as characteristic of Isaiah as the corresponding expression, " Behold, the days come" (ldnneli ydmim ba'im), is of Jeremiah (compare, for example, Isa. vii. 18-25). And it is more particularly in the promising or Messianic portions of the prophecy that it is so favourite an introduction (ch. xi. 10, 11, xii. 1; compare Zech. xii. xiii. xiv.). Nevertheless, the genuineness of vers. 16-25 has recently been called in question, more especially by Hitzig. Sometimes this passage has not been found fanatical enough to have emanated from Isaiah, i.e. too free from hatred towards the heathen; whereas, on the other hand, Knobel adduces evidence that the prophet was no fanatic at all. Sometimes it is too fanatical; in reply to which we observe, that there never was a prophet of God in the world who did not appear to a "sound human understanding" to be beside himself, since, even assuming that this human understanding be sound, it is only within the four sides of its own peculiar province that it is so. Again, in vers. 18, 19, a prophecy has been discovered which is too special to be Isaiah's, in opposition to which Knobel proves that it is not so special as is supposed. But it is quite special enough; and this can never astonish any one who can discern in the prophecy a revelation of the future communicated by God, whereas in itself it neither proves nor disproves the authorship of Isaiah. So far as the other arguments adduced against the genuineness are concerned, they have been answered exhaustively by Caspari, in a paper which he contributed on the subject to the Lutherisclie Zeitschrift, 1841, 3. Havernick, in his Introduction, has not been able to do anything better than appropriate the arguments adduced by Caspari. And we will not repeat for a third time what has been said twice already. The two halves of the prophecy are like the two wings of a bird. And it is only through its second half that the prophecy becomes the significant centre of the Ethiopic and Egyptian trilogy. For ch. xix. predicts the saving effect that will be produced upon Egypt by the destruction of Assyria. And ch. xix. 23 sqq. announces what will become of Assyria. Assyria will also pass through judgment to salvation. This eschatological conclusion to ch. xix., in which Egypt and Assyria are raised above themselves into representatives of the two halves of the heathen world, is the golden clasp which connects ch. xix. and xx. We now turn to this third portion of the trilogy, which bears the same relation, to ch. xix. as ch. xvi. 13, 14 to ch. xv.-xvi. 12.
This section, commencing in the form of historic prose, introduces itself thus: vers. 1, 2a. u In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, Sargon the king of Asshur having sent him (and he made tear against Ashdod, and captured it): at that time Jehovah spake through Yeshayahu the son of Amoz as follows" i.e. He communicated the following revelation through the medium of Isaiah (b'yad, as in ch. xxxvii. 24, Jer. xxxvii. 2, and many other passages). The revelation itself was attached to a symbolical act. B'yad (lit. " by the hand of ") refers to what was about to be made known through the prophet by means of the command that was given him; in other words, to ver. 3, and indirectly to ver. 2b. Tartan (probably the same man) is met with in 2 Kings xviii. 17 as the chief captain of Sennacherib. No Assyrian king of the name of Sargon is mentioned anywhere else in the Old Testament; but it may now be accepted as an established result of the researches which have been made, that Sargon was the successor of Shalmanassar, and that Shalrnaneser (Shalman, Hos. x. 14), Sargon, Sennacherib, and Esarhaddon, are the names of the four Assyrian kings who were mixed up with the closing history of the kingdoms of Israel and Judah. It was Longperrier who was the first to establish the identity of the monarch who built the palaces at Khorsabad, which form the northeastern corner of ancient Nineveh, with the Sargon of the Bible. We are now acquainted with a considerable number of brick, harem, votive-tablet, and other inscriptions which bear the name of this king, and contain all kinds of testimony concerning himself.1 It was he, not Shalmanassar, who took Samaria after a three years' siege; and in the annalistic inscription he boasts of having conquered the city, and removed the house of Omri to Assyria. Oppert is right in calling attention to the fact, that in 2 Kings xviii. 10 the conquest is
1 See Oppert, Expedition, i. 328-350, and the picture of Sargon in his war-chariot in Eawlinson's Five Great Monarchies, i. 368; compare also p. 304 (prisoners taken by Sargon), p. 352 (the plan of his palace), p. 483 (a glass vessel with his name), and many other engravings in vol. ii.
not attributed to Shalmanassar himself, but to the army. Shalmanassar died in front of Samaria; and Sargon not only put himself at the head of the army, but seized upon the throne, in which he succeeded in establishing himself, after a contest of several years' duration with the legitimate heirs and their party. He was therefore a usurper.1 Whether his name as it appears on the inscriptions is Sar-Mn or not, and whether it signifies the king de facto as distinguished from the king de jure, we will not attempt to determine now.2 This Sargon, the founder of a new Assyrian dynasty, who reigned from 721-702 (according to Oppert), and for whom there is at all events plenty of room between 721-20 and the commencement of Sennacherib's reign, first of all blockaded Tyre for five years after the fall of Samaria, or rather brought to an end the siege of Tyre which had been begun by Slialmanassar (Jos. Ant.ix. 14, 2), though whether it was to a successful end or not is quite uncertain. He then pursued with all the greater energy his plan for following up the conquest of Samaria with the subjugation of Egypt, which was constantly threatening the.possessions of Assyria in western Asia, either by instigation or support. The attack upon Ashdod was simply a means to this end. As the Philistines were led to join Egypt, not only by their situation, but probably by kinship of tribe as well, the conquest of Ashdod — a fortress so strong, that, according to Herodotus (ii. 157), Psammetichus besieged it for twenty-nine years — was an indispensable preliminary to the expedition against Egypt. When Alexander the Great marched against Egypt, he had to do the same with Gaza. How long Tartan
1 See Oppert, Les Inscriptions Assyriennes des Sargonides et les Pastes de Ninive (Versailles, 1862), and Rawlinson (vol. ii. 406 sqq.), who here agrees with Oppert in all essential points. Consequently there can no longer be any thought of identifying Sargon with Shalmanassar (see Brandis, Ueber den historischen Gewinn aus der Entzifferung der assyr. Insclmften, 1856, p. 48. sqq.). Rawlinson himself at first thought they were the same person (vid. Journal of the Asiatic Society, xii. 2, 419), until gradually the evidence increased that Sargon and Shalmanassar were the names of two different kings, although no independent inscription of the latter, the actual besieges of Samaria, has yet been found.
2 Hitzig ventures a derivation of the name from the Zend; and Grotefend compares it with the Chaldee Sdrek, Dan. vi. 3 (in his Abhandhuuj iiber Anlage und Zerstorung der Gcbdude von Nimrud, 1851).
required is not to be gathered from ver. 1. But if lie conquered it as quickly as Alexander conquered Gaza, — viz. in five months, — it is impossible to understand why the following prophecy should defer for three years the subjugation of Ethiopia and Egypt. The words, " and fought against Ashdod, and took it," must therefore be taken as anticipatory and parenthetical.
It was not after the conquest of Ashdod, but in the year in which the siege commenced, that Isaiah received the following admonition: 2b. " Go and loosen the smock-frock from off thy loins, and take off thy shoes from thy feet. And he did so, ivent stripped and barefooted." We see from this that Isaiah was clothed in the same manner as Elijah, who wore a fur coat (2 Kings i. 8, cf. Zech. xhi. 4, Heb. xi. 37), and John the Baptist, who had a garment of camel hair and a leather girdle round it (Matt. iii. 4); for sak is a coarse linen or hairy overcoat of a dark colour (Rev. vi. 12, cf. Isa. 1. 3), such as was worn by mourners, either next to the skin (al-habbdsdr, 1 Kings xxi. 27, 2 Kings vi. 30, Job xvi. 15) or over the tunic, in either case being fastened by a girdle on account of its want of shape, for which reason the verb chdgar is the word commonly used to signify the putting on of such a garment, instead of labashi The use of the word rdrom does not prove that the former was the case in this instance (see, on the contrary, 2 Sam. vi. 20, compared with ver. 14 and John xxi. 7). With the great importance attached to the clothing in the East, where the feelings upon this point are peculiarly sensitive and modest, a person was looked upon as stripped and naked if he had only taken off his upper garment. What Isaiah was directed to do, therefore, was simply opposed to common custom, and not to moral decency. He was to lay aside the dress of a mourner and preacher of repentance, and to have nothing on but his tunic (cetonetli); and in this, as well as barefooted, he was to show himself in public. This was the costume of a man who had been robbed and disgraced, or else oi; a beggar or prisoner of war. The word cen (so) is followed by the inf. abs., which develops the meaning, as in ch. v. 5, lviii. 6, 7.
It is not till Isaiah has carried out the divine instructions, that he learns the reason for this command to strip himself, and the length of time that he is to continue so stripped. Vers.
3, 4. " A nd Jehovah saia, As my servant Yeshayahu goeth naked and barefooted, a sign and type for three years long over Egypt <nid over Ethiopia, so will the king of Asshur carry away the prisoners of Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, children and old men, naked and barefooted, and with their seat uncovered — a shame to Egypt." The expression "as he goeth" (caasher hdlac) stands here at the commencement of the symbolical action, but it is introduced as if with a retrospective glance at its duration for three years, unless indeed the preterite hdlac stands here, as it frequently does, to express what has already commenced, and is still continuing and customary (compare, for example, Job i. 4 and Ps. i. 1). The strange and unseemly dress of the prophet, whenever he appeared in his official capacity for three whole years, was a prediction of the fall of the Egypto- Ethiopian kingdom, which was to take place at the end of these three years. Egypt and Ethiopia are as closely connected here as Israel and Judah in ch. xi. 12. They were at that time one kingdom, so that the shame of Egypt was the shame of Ethiopia also. 'Ervdh is a shameful nakedness, and 'ervath Mitzrayim is in apposition to all that precedes it in ver. 4. SJieth is the seat or hinder part, as in 2 Sam. x. 4, from shdthdh, to set or seat; it is a substantive form, like 1?, YV, JH, DB>, with the third radical letter dropt. Chashuphay has the same ay as the wordsin ch. xix. 9, Judg. v. 15, Jer. xxii. 14, which can hardly 'be regarded as constructive forms, as Ewald, Knobel, and Gesenius suppose (although *— of the construct has arisen from *—)> but rather as a singular form with a collective signification. The emendations suggested, viz. chasuphe by Olshausen,, and chasuphi with a connecting i by Meier, are quite unnecessary.
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? Vers. 5, 6. " And they cry together, and behold themselves deceived by Ethiopia, to which they looked; and by Egypt, in which they gloried. And the inJiabitant 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? " % which signifies both an island and a coast-land, is used as the name of Philistia in Zeph. ii. 5, and as the name of Phoenicia in ch.
xxiii. 2, 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 Nahum iii. 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 Pawlinson agrees with Oppert in finding an account of the complete subjection of Sebech (Sabako?).1 Nothing can be built upon this, however; and it must also remain uncertain whether, even if the rest is correctly interpreted, ch. xx. 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.1 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 Psamraetichus; 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.
1 Among the pictures from Khorsabad which have "been published by Botta, there is a burning fortress 'that has been taken by storm. Isidor Lowenstern (in his Essai, Paris 1845) pronounced it to be Ashdod; but Rodiger regarded the evidence as inconclusive. Nevertheless, Lbwenstern was able to claim priority over Rawlinson in several points of deciphering (Galignani's Messenger, Feb. 28, 1850). He read in the inscription the king's name, Sarah.
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 u desert of the sea" (midbar-ydm) could have been taken from the prophecy itself; for yam 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 (ch. xxi. 1-10, 11-12, 13-17, and xxii.) are so intertwined the one wTith the other as to form a tetralogy, not only through their emblematical titles (compare ch. xxx. 6) and their visionary bearing, but also in many ways through the contexts themselves. Thus the designation of the prophet as a u 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 (ch. xxii. 6) Kir and Elam march against Jerusalem. The form of expression is also Strikingly similar in both instances (compare ch. xxii. 6, 7, with ch. xxi. 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 ch. xiii. 1 sqq.; and that, most truly, neither from a needless apologetical interest, nor from forced traditional prejudice. Just as the massd Babel 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 the massa midbar-ydm 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 ch. xv, 1, how closely the headings fit in to the prophecies themselves. Isaiah is fond of symbolical names (ch. xxix. 1, xxx. 7). And midbar-ydm (desert of the sea) is a name of this kind applied to Babylon and the neighbourhood. The continent on which Babylon stood was a midbdr, 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 (irekayl^uv, Herod. i. 184). Abydenus even says, that at first the whole of it was covered with water, and was called thalassa (Euseb. pra?p. ix. 41). We may learn from ch. xiv. 23, why it was that the prophet made use of this symbolical name. The origin and natui'al features of Babylon are made into ominous prognostics of its ultimate fate. The true interpretation is found in Jeremiah (Jer. li. 13, 1. 38), who was acquainted with this oracle.
The power which first brings destruction upon the city of the world, is a hostile army composed of several nations. Yers. 1, 2. "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 tip, Elam! Surround, Maday! I put an end to all their sighing." " Storms in the south" (compare ch. xxviii. 21, Amos iii. 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 L 19, xxxvii. 9; see Hos. xiii. 15). It would be natural, therefore, to connect mimmidbdr with lachaloph (as Knobel and Umbreit do), but the arrangement of the wrords is opposed to this; lachaloph (" pressing forwards") is used instead of yachalvph (see Ges. § 132, Anm. 1, and still more fully on Hab. i. 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 Babvlonia 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 lowdand of Chuzistan (the route taken by Major Rawlinson with a Guran regiment),2 and thus approached Babylon from the south-east, it might be regarded in many respects as coming mimmidbdr (from the desert), and primarily because the lowland of Chuzistan is a broad open plain — that is to say, a midbdr. 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 Chaldea 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 ver. 1, which is quite in harmony with Isaiah's
1 See C. Masson's " Illustration of the route from Seleucia to Apobatana, as given by Isid. of Charax," in the Asiatic Journal, xii. 97 sqq.
usual custom, the prophet begins again in ver. 2. Chdzuth (a vision) has the same meaning here as in ch. xxix. 11 (though not ch. xxviii. 18); and chdzuth kdshdh 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 difjicilis, not gravis, cubed), 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 ch. xxxiii. 1, compare ch. xvi. 4, xxiv. 16, bdgad 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 ch. xvi. 10) to all their sighing (anchdthdh, 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.
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. Vers. 3, 4. " Therefore are my loins full of cramp: pangs have taken hold of me, as the pangs of a travailing woman: I tivist 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 J 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. Chalchdldh is the contortion produced by cramp, as in Nahum ii. 11; tzirim is the word properly applied to the pains of childbirth; naavdh means to bend, or bow one's self, and is also used to denote a convulsive utterance of pain; td' ah, which is used in a different sense from Ps. xcv. 10 (compare, however, Ps. xxxviii. 11), denotes a feverish and irregular beating of the pulse. The darkness of evening and night, which the prophet loved so much (cheshek, a desire arising from inclination, 1 Kings ix. 1, 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 been changed into quaking by the horrible vision. It is quite impossible to imagine, as Umbreit suggests, that neslieph chisJJci (the darkness of my pleasure) refers to the nocturnal feast during which Babylon was stormed (Herod, i. 191, and Xenophon, Cyrop. vii. 23).
On the other hand, what Xenophon so elaborately relates, and what is also in all probability described in Dan. v. 30 (compare Jer. li. 39, 57), is referred to in ver. 5: u They cover the table, watch the ivatch, eat, drink. Rise up, ye princes! Anoint the shield /" This is not a scene from the hostile camp, where they are strengthening themselves for an attack upon Babylon: for the express allusion to the covering of the table is intended to create the impression of confident and careless good living; and the exclamation u anoint the shield" (cf. Jer. li. 11) presupposes that they have first of all to prepare themselves for battle, and therefore that they have been taken by surprise. What the prophet sees, therefore, is a banquet in Babylon. The only thing that does not seem quite to square with this is one of the infinitives with which the picture is so vividly described (Ges. § 131, 4, b), namely tzdphoh hatztzdphiih. Hitzig's explanation, " they spread carpets " (from tzdphdh, expandere, obducere, compare the Talmudic tziphdh, tziphtdh, a mat, storea), commends itself thoroughly; but it is without any support in biblical usage, so that we prefer to follow the Targum, Peshito, and Vulgate (the Sept. does not give any translation of the words at all), and understand the hap. leg, tzdphith as referring to the watch: "they set the watch." They content themselves with this one precautionary measure, and give themselves up with all the greater recklessness to their night's debauch (cf. ch. xxii. 13). The prophet mentions this, because (as Meier acknowledges) it is by the watch that the cry, " Rise up, ye princes," etc., is addressed to the feasters. The shield-leather was generally oiled, to make it shine and protect it from wet, and, more than all, to cause the strokes it might receive to glide off (compare the lo?ves clypeos in Virg. jEn. vii. 626). The infatuated self-confidence of the chief men of Babylon was proved by the fact that they had to be aroused. They fancied that they were hidden behind the walls and waters of the city, and therefore they had not even got their weapons ready for use.
The tacit link in the train of thought is this: they act thus in Babylon, because the destruction of Babylon is determined. The form in which this thought is embodied is the following: the prophet receives instruction in the vision to set a metzappeh upon the watch-tower, who was to look out and see what more took place. Ver. 6. u For thus said the Lord to me, Go, set a spy; what he seeth, let him declare." In other cases it is the prophet himself who stands upon the watch-tower (ver. li; Hab. ii. 1, 2); but here in the vision a distinction is made between the prophet and the person whom he stations upon the watch-tower {specula). The prophet divides himself, as it were, into two persons (compare ch. xviii. 4 for the introduction; and for the expression " go," ch. xx. 2). He now sees through the medium of a spy, just as Zechariah sees by means of the angel speaking in him; with this difference, however, that here the spy is the instrument employed by the prophet, whereas there the prophet is the instrument employed by the angel.
What the man upon the watch-tower sees first of all, is a long, long procession, viz. the hostile army advancing quietly, like a caravan, in serried ranks, and with the most perfect selfreliance. Ver. 7. " And he saw a procession of cavalry, pairs of horsemen, a procession of asses, a procession of camels; and listened sharply, as sharply as he could listen." Eeceh, both here and in ver. 9, signifies neither riding-animals nor war-chariots, but a troop seated upon animals — a procession of riders. In front there was a procession Of riders arranged two and two, for Persians and Medes fought either on foot or on horseback (the latter, at any rate, from the time of Cyrus; vid. Cyrop. iv. 3); and pdrdsh signifies a rider on horseback (in Arabic it is used in distinction from rdkib, the rider on camels). Then came lines of asses and camels, a large number of which were always taken with the Persian army for different purposes. They not only carried baggage and provisions, but were taken into battle to throw the enemy into confusion. Thus Cyrus gained the victory over the Lydians by means of the great number of his camels (Herod, i. 80), and Darius Hystaspis the victory over the Scythians by means of the number of asses that he employed (Herod, iv. 129). Some of the subject tribes rode upon asses and camels instead of horses: the Arabs rode upon camels in the army of Xerxes, and the Caramanians rode upon asses. What the spy saw was therefore, no doubt, the Persian army. But he only saw and listened. It was indeed " listening, greatness of listening," i.e. he stretched his ear to the utmost (rab is a substantive, as in ch. Ixiii. 7, Ps. cxlv. 7; and hikshib, according to its radical notion, signifies to stiffen, viz. the ear);x but he heard nothing, because the long procession was moving with the stillness of death.
At length the procession has vanished; he sees nothing and hears nothing, and is seized with impatience. Ver. 8. " Then he cried with lioiis voice, Upon the watch-tower* 0 Lord, I stand continually by day, and upon my icatch I keep my stand all the nights." He loses all his patience, and growls as if he were a lion (compare Rev. x. 3), with the same dull, angry sound, the same long, deep breath out of full lungs, complaining to God that he has to stand so long at his post without seeing anything, except that inexplicable procession that has now vanished away.
But when he is about to speak, his complaint is stifled in his mouth. Ver. 9. u And, behold, there came a cavalcade of men, pairs of horsemen, and lifted up its voice, and said, Fallen, fallen is Babylon; and all the images of its gods lie hath dashed to the ground! " It is now clear enough where the long procession went to when it disappeared. It entered Babylon, made itself master of the city, and established itself there. And now, after a long interval, there appears a smaller cavalcade, which has to carry the tidings of victory somewhere; and the spy hears them cry out in triumph, " Fallen, fallen is Babylon! " In Rev. xviii. 1, 2, the same words form the shout of triumph raised by the angel, the antitype being more majestic than the type, whilst upon the higher ground of the New Testament everything moves on in spiritual relations, all that is merely national having lost its power. Still even here the spiritual inwardness of the affair is so far expressed, that it is Jehovah who dashes to the ground; and even the heathen conquerors are
1 Bbttcher has very correctly compared kdshab (Jcasuba) with kdshdh (kasa), and Fleischer with sar?*a (tzarar), which is applied in the kal and Jiiphil (asarra) to any animal (horse, ass, etc.) when it holds its ears straight and erect to listen to any noise (sarra udhneihi, or udhnaliu oi-utlhneihi, or bi-udhni]ii iv., asarra bi-udhnihi, and also absolutely asarra, exactly like hikshib).
obliged to confess that the fall of Babylon and its pesilim (compare Jer. li. 47, 52) is the work of Jehovah Himself. What is here only hinted at from afar— namely, that Cyrus would act as the anointed of Jehovah — is expanded in the second part (ch. xl.-lxvi.) for the consolation of the captives.
The night vision related and recorded by the prophet, a prelude to the revelations contained in ch. xl.-lx., was also intended for the consolation of Israel, which had already much to suffer, when Babylon was still Assyrian, but would have to suffer far more from it when it should become Chaldean. Ver. 10. " 0 thou my threshing, and child of my threshing-floor! What I have heard from Jehovah of hosts, the Qod of Israel, I have declared to you" Threshing (dush) is a figure used to represent crushing oppression in ch. xli. 15 and Mic. iv. 12, 13; and judicial visitation in Jer. li. 33 (a parallel by which we must not allow ourselves to be misled, as Jeremiah has there given a different turn to Isaiah's figure, as he very frequently does); and again, as in the present instance, chastising plagues, in which wrath and good intention are mingled together. Israel, placed as it was under the tyrannical supremacy of the imperial power, is called the medtisshdh (for medushah, i.e. the threshing) of Jehovah, — in other words, the corn threshed by Him; also His " child of the threshing-floor," inasmuch as it was laid in the floor, in the bosom as it were of the threshingplace, to come out threshed (and then to become a thresher itself, Mic. iv. 12, 13). This floor, in which Jehovah makes a judicial separation of grains and husks in Israel, was 'their captivity. Babylon is the instrument of the threshing wrath of God. But love also takes part in the threshing, and restrains the wrath. This is what the prophet has learned in the vision (" I have heard," as in ch. xxviii. 22), — a consolatory figure for the threshing-corn in the floor, i.e. for Israel, which was now subject to the power of the world, and had been mowed off its own field and carried captive into Babylonia.
This oracle consists of a question, addressed to the prophet from Seir, and of the prophet's reply. Seir is the mountainous country to the south of Palestine, of which Edom took possession after the expulsion of the Horites. Consequently the Dumah of the heading cannot be either the Duma of Eastern Hauran (by the side of which we find also a Tema and a Buzaii); or the Duma in the high land of Arabia, on the great Nabataean line of traffic between the northern harbours of the Red Sea and Irak, which bore the cognomen of the rocky (el-gendel) or Syrian Duma (Gen. xxv. 14); or the Duma mentioned in the Onom., which was seventeen miles from Eleutheropolis (or according to Jerome on this passage, twenty) " in Daroma hoc est ad australem plagam" and was probably the same place as the Duma in the mountains of Judah, — that is to say, judging from the ruins of Daume, to the south-east of Eleutheropolis (see the Com. on Josh. xv. 52), a place out of which Jerome has made " a certain region of Idumasa, near which are the mountains of Seir." The name as it stands here is symbolical, and without any demonstrable topographical application. Dumdh is deep, utter silence, and therefore the land of the dead (Ps. xciv. 17, cxv. 17). The name DY1K is turned into an emblem of the future fate of Edom, by the removal of the a-sound from the beginning of the word to the end. It becomes a land of deathlike stillness, deathlike sleep, deathlike darkness. Ver. 11. u A cry comes to me out of Seir: Watchman, how far is it in the night? Watchman, how far in the nightV Luther translates the participle correctly, " they cry" (jnan ruft; compare the similar use of the participle in ch. xxx. 24, xxxiii. 4). For the rest, however, we have deviated from Luther's excellent translation, for the purpose of giving to some extent the significant change from i"i79D and 79B. The more winded form of the second question is expressive of heightened, anxious urgency and haste. The wish is to hear that it is very late in the night, and that it will soon be past; mm is partitive (Saad.), " What part of the night are we at now?" Just as a sick man longs for a sleepless night to come to an end, and is constantly asking what time it is, so do they inquire of the prophet out of Edom, whether the night of tribulation will not be soon over. We are not to understand, however, that messengers were really sent out of Edom to Isaiah; the process was purely a pneumatical one. The prophet stands there in Jerusalem, in the midst of the benighted world of nations, like a sentry upon the watch tower; he understands the anxious inquiries of the nations afar off, and answers them according to the word of Jehovah, which is the plan and chronological measure of the history of the nations, and the key to its interpretation. What, then, is the prophet's reply? He lets the inquirer " see through a glass darkly." — Ver. 12. " Watchman says, Morning cometli, and also night. Will ye inquire, inquire! Turn, come! 7" The answer is intentionally and pathetically expressed in an Aramaean form of Hebrew. NriK (written even with X at the end, cf. Deut. xxxiii. 2) is the Aramaean word for Kia; and nyzt (N]D) the Aramaean word for?&&, from the primary form of which (^3) the future tiUdyun is taken here (as in ch. xxxiii. 7), and the imperative Ifayu (Ges. § 75, Anm. 4). tffiK, which is here pointed in the Syriac style, Vnx, as in ch. lvi. 9, 12, would be similarly traceable to TIK (cf. Ges. § 75, Anm. 4, with § 23, Anm. 2). But what is the meaning? Luther seems to me to have hit upon it: " When the morning comes, it will still be night." But vgam (and also) is not equivalent to " and yet," as Schroring explains it, with a reference to Ewald, § 354, a. With the simple connection in the clauses, the meaning cannot possibly be, that a morning is coming, and that it will nevertheless continue night, but that a morning is coming, and at the same time a night, i.e. that even if the morning dawns, it will be swallowed up again directly by night. And the history was quite in accordance with such an answer. The Assyrian period of judgment was followed by the Chaldean, and the Chaldean by the Persian, and the Persian by the Grecian, and the Grecian by the Pom an. Again and again there was a glimmer of morning dawn for Edom (and what a glimmer in the Herodian age!), but it was swallowed up directly by another night, until Edom became an utter Dumdh, and disappeared from the history of the nations. The prophet does not see to the utmost end of these Edomitish nights, but he has also no consolation for Edom. It is altogether different with Edom from what it is with Israel, the nocturnal portion of whose history has a morning dawn, according to promise, as its irrevocable close. The prophet therefore sends the inquirers home. Would they ask any further questions, they might do so, might turn and come. In shubu (turn back) there lies a significant though ambiguous hint. It is only in the case of their turning, coming, i.e. VOL. i. 2 B coming back converted, that the prophet has any consolatory answer for them. So long as they are not so, there is suspended over their future an interminable night, to the prophet as much as to themselves. The way to salvation for every other people is just the same as for Israel, — namely, the way of repentance.
The heading 2$? K&o (the y written according to the best codd. with a simple shevd), when pointed as we have it, signifies, according to Zech. ix. 1 (cf. Isa. ix. 7), u oracle against Arabia." But why not massd 'Arab, since massd is followed by a simple genitive in the other three headings? Or again, is this the only heading in the tetralogy that is not symbolical? We must assume that the Beth by which this is distinguished is introduced for the express purpose of rendering it symbolical, and that the prophet pointed it first of all 3"W3, but had at the same time S-jyn in his mind. The earlier translators (LXX., Targum, Syr., Vulg., Ar.) read the second y]V% like the first, but without any reason. The oracle commences with an evening scene, even without our altering the second ^?. And the massa has a symbolical title founded upon this evening scene. Just as 'Edom becomes Dumah, inasmuch as a night without a morning dawn falls upon the mountain land of Seir, so will Siyn soon be 2"iy2, inasmuch as the sun of Arabia is setting. Evening darkness is settling upon Arabia, and the morning-land is becoming an evening-land. Vers. 13-15: " In the wilderness in Arabia ye must pass the night, caravans of the Dedanians. Bring water to meet thirsty ones! The inhabitants of the landofTema are coming with its bread before the fugitive. For they are flying before sivords, before drawn swords, and before a bent bow, and before oppressive war? There is all the less ground for making any alteration in 2"iyn "W_52, inasmuch as the second Beth (wilderness in Arabia for of Arabia) is favoured by Isaiah's common usage (ch. xxviii. 21, ix. 2; compare 2 Sam. i. 21, Amos iii. 9). * Arab, written with pathach, is Arabia (Ezek. xxvii. 21; rardb in pause, Jer. xxv. 24); and yaar here is the solitary barren desert, as distinguished from the cultivated land with its cities and villages. Wetzstein rejects the meaning nemus, sylva, which yaar has been assumed to have, because it would be rather a promise than a threat to be told that they would have to flee from the steppe into the wood, since a shady tree is the most delicious dream of the Beduins, who not only find shade in the forest, but a constant supply of green pasture, and fuel for their hospitable hearths. He therefore renders it, " Ye will take refuge in the V ar of Arabia," i.e. the open steppe will no longer afford you any shelter, so that ye will be obliged to hide yourselves in the V*ar. ^ for example, is the name applied to the trachytic rayon of the Syro-Hauranitic volcanoes which is covered with a layer of stones. But as the V'ar in this sense is also planted with trees, and furnishes firewood, this epithet must rest upon some peculiar distinction in the radical meaning of the word yaar, which really does mean a forest in Hebrew, though not necessarily a forest of lofty trees, but also a wilderness overgrown with brushwood and thorn-bushes. The meaning of the passage before us we therefore take to be this: the trading caravans (drclwth, like halicoth in Job vi. 19) of the Dedanians, that mixed tribe of Cushites and Abrahamides dwelling in the neighbourhood of the Edomites (Gen. x. 7, xxv. 3), when on their way from east to west, possibly to Tyre (Ezek. xxvii. 20), would be obliged to encamp in the wilderness, being driven out of the caravan road in consequence of the war that was spreading from north to south. The prophet, whose sympathy mingles with the revelation in this instance also, asks for water for the panting fugitives (*VJ»» as in Jer. xii. 9, an imperative equivalent to VTixn = VTiKH; compare 2 Kings ii. 3: there is no necessity to read VQ*}?_, as the Targum, Doderlein, and Ewald do). They are driven back with fright towards the south-east as far as Tema, on the border of Negd and the Syrian desert. The Tema referred to is not the trans-Hauranian Tema, which is three-quarters of an hour from Dumah, although there is a good deal that seems to favour this,1 but the Tema on the pilgrim road from Damascus to Mecca, between Tebuk and Wadi el-Kora, which is about the same distance (four days' journey) from both these places, and also from Chaibar (it is to be distinguished, however, from Tihama, the coast land of Yemen, the antithesis of which is negd, the mountain district 1 See Wetzstein, ut svpra, p. 202; compare Jb&, ii. 425.
of Yemen1). But even here in the land of Tema they do not feel themselves safe. The inhabitants of Tema are obliged to bring them water and bread (" its bread," lachmo, referring to noded: the bread necessary in order to save them), into the hiding-places in which they have concealed themselves. " How humiliating," as Drechsler well observes, "to be obliged to practise their hospitality, the pride of Arabian customs, in so restricted a manner, and with such unbecoming secrecy!" But it could not possibly be done in any other way, since the weapons of the foe were driving them incessantly before them, and the war itself was rolling incessantly forward like an overwhelming colossus, as the repetition of the word "before" (mippene) no less than four times clearly implies.
Thus does the approaching fate of Arabia present itself in picture before the prophet's eye, whilst it is more distinctly revealed in vers. 16, 17: "For tints hath the Lord spoken to me, Within a year, as the years of a hired labourer, it is over with all the glory of Kedar. And the remnant of the number of boxes of the heroes of the Kedarenes ivill be small: for Jehovah, the God of Israel, hath spoken" The name Kedar is here the collective name of the Arabic tribes generally. In the stricter sense, Kedar, like Nebaioth, which is associated with it, was a nomadic tribe of Ishmaelites, which wandered as far as the Elanitic Gulf. Within the space of a year, measured as exactly as is generally the case where employers and labourers are concerned, Kedar's freedom, military strength, numbers, and wealth (all these together constituting its glory), would all have disappeared. Nothing but a small remnant would be left of the heroic sons of Kedar and their bows. They are numbered here by their bows (in distinction from the numbering by heads), showing that the fighting men are referred to, — a mode of numbering which is customary among the Indian tribes of America, for example.2 The noun shear (remnant) is followed by five genitives here (just as peri is by four in ch. x. 12); and the predicate ^V^>\ is in the plural because of the copiousness of the subject. The period of the fulfilment of the prophecy keeps us still within the Assyrian era. In Herodotus
(2, 141), Sennacherib is actually called "king of Arabians and Assyrians" (compare Josephus, Ant. x. 1, 4); and both Sargon and Sennacherib, in their annalistic inscriptions, take credit to themselves for the subjugation of Arabian tribes. But in the Chaldean era Jeremiah predicted the same things against Kedar (ch. xlix.) as against Edom; and Jer. xlix. 30, 31 was evidently written with a retrospective allusion to this oracle of Isaiah. When the period fixed by Isaiah for the fulfilment arrived, a second period grew out of it, and one still more remote, inasmuch as a second empire, viz. the Chaldean, grew out of the Assyrian, and inaugurated a second period of judgment for the nations. After a short glimmer of morning the nijxht set in a second time upon Edom, and a second time upon Arabia.
The chdzuth concerning Babylon, and the no less visionary prophecies concerning Edom and Arabia, are now followed by a massd, the object of which is "the valley of vision" (ge chizzdyon) itself. Of course these four prophecies were not composed in the tetralogical form in which they are grouped together here, but were joined together at a later period in a group of this kind on account of their close affinity. The internal arrangement of the group was suggested, not by the date of their composition (they stand rather in the opposite relation to one another), but by the idea of a storm coming from a distance, and bursting at last over Jerusalem; for there can be no doubt that the " valley of vision" is a general name for Jerusalem as a whole, and not the name given to one particular valley of Jerusalem. It is true that the epithet applied to the position of Jerusalem does not seem to be in harmony with this; for, according to Josephus, " the city was built upon two hills, which are opposite to one another and have a valley to divide them asunder, at which valley the corresponding rows of houses on both hills end" ( Wars of the Jews, v. 4, 1; Whiston). But the epithet is so far allowable, that there are mountains round Jerusalem (Ps. exxv. 2); and the same city which is on an eminence in relation to the land generally, appears to stand on low ground when contrasted with the mountains in the immediate neighbourhood (777)0? Se ra i^ofieva ravrns rynoXocfra ^OajxaXi^erac, as Phocas says). According to this twofold aspect, Jerusalem is called the " inhabitant of the valley" in Jer. xxi. 13, and directly afterwards the " rock of the plain;" just as in Jer. xvii. 3 it is called the mountain in the fields, whereas Zephaniah (i. 11) applies the epithet mactesh (the mortar or cauldron) not to all Jerusalem, but to one portion of it (probably the ravine of the Tyropaeum). And if we add to this the fact that Isaiah's house was situated in the lower town, — and therefore the standpoint of the epithet is really there, — it is appropriate in other respects still; for the prophet had there the temple-hill and the Mount of Olives, which is three hundred feet higher, on the east, and Mount Zion before him towards the south; so that Jerusalem appeared like a city in a valley in relation to the mountains inside, quite as much as to those outside. But the epithet is intended to be something more than geographical. A valley is a deep, still, solitary place, cut off and shut in by mountains. And thus Jerusalem was an enclosed place, hidden and shut off from the world, which Jehovah had chosen as the place in which to show to His prophets the mysteries of His government of the world. And upon this sacred prophets' city the judgment of Jehovah was about to fall; and the announcement of the judgment upon it is placed among the oracles concerning the nations of the world! We may see from this, that at the time when this prophecy was uttered, the attitude of Jerusalem was so worldly and heathenish, that it called forth this dark, nocturnal threat, which is penetrated by not a single glimmer of promise. But neither the prophecies of the time of Ahaz relating to the Assyrian age of judgment, nor those which were uttered in the midst of the Assyrian calamities, are so destitute of promise and so peremptory as this. The massa therefore falls in the intermediate time, probably the time when the people were seized with the mania for liberty, and the way was prepared for their breaking away from Assyria by their hope of an alliance with Egypt (yid. Delitzsch-Caspari, Studien, ii. 173-4). The prophet exposes the nature and worthlessness of their confidence in vers. 1-3: " WJiat aileth thee, then, that thou art wholly ascended upon the house-tops? 0 full of tumult, thou noisy city, shouting castle, thy slain men are not slain with the sword, nor slaughtered m battle. All thy rulers departing together are fettered without bow; all thy captured ones are fettered together, fleeing far away? From the flat house-tops they all look out together at the approaching army of the foe, longing for battle, and sure of victory (culldk is for cullek, ch. xiv. 29, 31). They have no suspicion of what is threatening them; therefore are they so sure, so contented, and so defiant, nxta niKBTl is inverted, and stands for nSxvn n*&D, like rruo nWin ch. viii. 22. m)>y is used to denote self-confident rejoicing, as in Zeph. ii. 15. How terribly they deceive themselves! Not even the honour of falling upon the battle-field is allowed them. Their rulers (kdtzin, a judge, and then any person of rank) depart one and all out of the city, and are fettered outside " without bow" (niikkesheth), i.e. without there being any necessity for the bow to be drawn (min, as in Job xxi. 9, 2 Sam. i. 22; cf. Ewald, § 217, b). All, without exception, of those who are attacked in Jerusalem by the advancing foe (nimzd'ailc, thy captured ones, as in ch. xiii. 15), fall helplessly into captivity, as they are attempting to flee far away (see at ch. xvii. 13; the perf de conatu answers to the classical pro3sens de conatu). Hence (what is here affirmed indirectly) the city is besieged, and in consequence of the long siege hunger and pestilence destroy the inhabitants, and every one who attempts to get away falls into the hands of the enemy, without venturing to defend himself, on account of his emaciation and exhaustion from hunger. Whilst the prophet thus pictures to himself the fate of Jerusalem and Judah, through their infatuation, he is seized with inconsolable anguish. — Vers. 4, 5. " Therefore I say, Look away from me, that I may weep bitterly; press me not with consolations for the destruction of the daughter of my people! For a day of noise, and of treading down, and of confusion, cometh from the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, in the valley of vision, breaking down walls; and a cry of ivoe echoes against the mountains? The note struck by Isaiah here is the note of the kinah that is continued in the Lamentations of Jeremiah. Jeremiah says sheber for shod (Lam. iii. 48), and bath-ammi (daughter of my people) is varied with bath-zion (daughter of Zion) and bathyehudah (daughter of Judah). Merer babbeci (weep bitterly) is more than bdcdh mar (ch. xxxiii. 7): it signifies to give one's self thoroughly up to bitter weeping, to exhaust one's self with weeping. The two similar sounds which occur in ver. 5, in imitation of echoes, can hardly be translated. The day of divine judgment is called a day in which masses of men crowd together with great noise (inehumdh), in which Jerusalem and its inhabitants are trodden down by foes (mebusdh) and are thrown into wild confusion (mebucdh). This is one play upon words. The other makes the crashing of the walls audible, as they are hurled down by the siege-artillery (melcarkar Mr). Kirker is not a denom. of Jar, as Kimchi and Ewald suppose (unwalling walls), but is to be explained in accordance with Num. xxiv. 17, " he undermines," i.e. throws down by removing the supports, in other words, u to the very foundations " (kur, to dig, hence karkdrdh, the bottom of a vessel, Kelim ii. 2; hurhoreth, the bottom of a net, ib. xxviii. 10, or of a cask, Alialoth ix. 16). When this takes place, then a cry of woe echoes against the mountain (shod, like shud, shevd), i.e. strikes against the mountains that surround Jerusalem, and is echoed back again. Knobel understands it as signifying a cry for help addressed to the mountain where Jehovah dwells; but this feature is altogether unsuitable to the God-forgetting worldly state in which Jerusalem is found. It is also to be observed, in opposition to Knobel, that the description does not move on in the same natural and literal way as in a historical narrative. The prophet is not relating, but looking; and in ver. 5 he depicts the day of Jehovah according to both its ultimate intention and its ultimate result.
The advance of the besiegers, which leads to the destruction of the walls, is first described in vers. 6, 7. " And Elam has taken the quiver ', together ivith chariots with men, horsemen; and Kir has drawn out the shield. And then it comes to pass, that thy choicest valleys are filled with chariots, and the horsemen plant a firm foot towards the gate" Of the nations composing the Assyrian army, the two mentioned are Elam, the Semitic nation of Susiana (Chuzistan), whose original settlements were the row of vallevs between the Zam-os chain and the chain of advanced mountains bounding the Assyrian plains on the east, and who were greatly dreaded as bowmen (Ezek. xxxii. 24; Jer. xlix. 35), and Kir, the inhabitants of the country of the Cyras river, which was an Assyrian province, according to
2 Kings xvi. 9 and Amos i. 5, and still retained its dependent position even in the time of the Achoemenides, when Armenia, at any rate, is expressly described in the arrowheaded writings as a Persian province, though a rebellious one. The readiness for battle of this people of Kur, who represent, in combination with Elam, the whole extent of the Assyrian empire from south to north,1 is attested by their " drawing out the shield " (erdh mdgen), which Coesar calls scatis tegimenta detrahere {hell. gall. ii. 21); for the Talmudic meaning applicare cannot be thought of for a moment (Buxtorf, lex. col. 1664). These nations that fought on foot were accompanied (beth, as in 1 Kings x. 2) by chariots filled with men (receb 9dddm), i.e. war-chariots (as distinguished from 'agdloth), and, as is added aavvBerasq, by pdrdshim, riders (i.e. horsemen trained to arms). The historical tense is introduced with W1 in ver. 7, but in a purely future sense. It is only for the sake of the favourite arrangement of the words that the passage does not proceed with Vav relat. *N7|M. " Thy valleys " (amdkaik) are the valleys by which Jerusalem was encircled on the east, the west, and the south, viz. the valley of Kidron on the east; the valley of Gihon on the west; the valley of Kephaim, stretching away from the road to Bethlehem, on the southwest (ch. xvii. 5); the valley of Hinnom, which joins the Tyropaeum, and then runs on into a south-eastern angle; and possibly also the valley of Jehoshaphat, which ran on the northeast of the city above the valley of Kidron. These valleys, more especially the finest of them towards the south, are now cut up by the wheels and hoofs of the enemies' chariots and horses; and the enemies' horsemen have already taken a firm position gatewards, ready to ride full speed against the gates at a given signal, and force their way into the city (slilth with a slioth to strengthen it, as in Ps. iii. 7; also slm in 1 Kings xx. 12, compare 1 Sam. xv. 2).
1 The name Gurglstan (= Georgia) has nothing to do with the river Kur; and it is a suspicious fact that Kir has 1c at the commencement, and i in the middle, whereas the name of the river which joins the Araxes, and flows into the Caspian sea, is pronounced Kur, and is written in Persian with i=s (answering to the Armenian and old Persian, in which Kuru is equivalent to Kupo;). Wetzstein considers Kir a portion of Mesopotamia.
hope, shall become aware of the extreme danger in which it is standing, it will adopt prudent measures, but without God. Vers. 8-11. u Then he takes away the covering of Judah, and thou loohest in that day to the store of arms of the forest-house; and ye see the breaches of the city of David, that there are many of them; and ye collect together the waters of the lower pool. And ye number the houses of Jerusalem, and pull down the houses, to fortify the wall. And ye make a basin between the two xoalls for the waters of the old pool; and ye do not look to Him who made it, neither do ye have regard to Him who fashioned it long ago J* Mdsdk is the curtain or covering which made Judah blind to the threatening danger. Their looks are now directed first of all to the forest-house, built by Solomon upon Zion for the storing and display of valuable arms and utensils (neshtk, or rather, according to the Masora on Job xx. 24, and the older editions, nZsJigk), and so called because it rested upon four rows of cedar columns that ran all round (it was in the centre of the fore-court of the royal palace; see Thenius, das vorexil. Jerusalem, p. 13). They also noticed in the city of David, the southern and highest portion of the city of Jerusalem, the bad state of the walls, and began to think of repairing them. To this end they numbered the houses of the city, to obtain building materials for strengthening the walls and repairing the breaches, by pulling down such houses as were suitable for the purpose, and could be dispensed with (vattithtzu, from ndthatz, with the removal of the recompensative reduplication). The lower pool and the old pool, probably the upper, i.e. the lower and upper Gihon, were upon the western side of the city, the lower (Birket es- Sultan) to the west of Sion, the upper (Birket el-Mamilla) farther up to the west of Akra (Robinson, i. 483-486; v. Raumer, Pal. pp. 305-6). Kibbetz either means to collect in the pool by stopping up the outflow, or to gather together in the reservoirs and wells of the city by means of artificial canals. The latter, however, would most probably be expressed by *]DX; so that the meaning that most naturally suggests itself is, that they concentrate the water, so as to be able before the siege to provide the city as rapidly as possible with a large supply. The word sdtham, which is used in the account of the actual measures adopted by Hezekiah when he was threatened with siege (2 Chron. xxxii. 2-5), is a somewhat different one, and indicates the stopping up, not of the outflow but of the springs, and therefore of the influx. But in all essential points the measures adopted agree with those indicated here in the prophecy. The chronicler closes the account of Hezekiah's reign by still further observing that " Hezekiah also stopped the outflow of the upper Gihon, and carried the water westwards underground to the city of David " (2 Chron. xxxii. 30, explanatory of 2 Kings xx. 20). If the upper Gihon is the same as the upper pool, there was a conduit (teedldh), connected with the upper Gihon as early as the time of Ahaz, ch. vii. 3. And Hezekiah's peculiar work consisted in carrying the water of the upper pool "into the city of David." The mikvah between the two walls, which is here prospectively described by Isaiah, is connected with this water supply, which Hezekiah really carried out. There is still a pool of Hezekiah (also called Birhet el~Batrah7 pool of the patriarchs, the Amygdalon of Josephus) on the western side of the city, to the east of the Joppa gate. During the rainy season this pool is supplied by the small conduit which runs from the upper pool along the surface of the ground, and then under the wall against or near the Joppa gate. It also lies between two walls, viz. the wall to the north of Zion, and the one which runs to the northeast round the Akra (Robinson, i. 487-489). How it came to pass that Isaiah's words concerning " a basin between the two walls " were so exactly carried out, as though they had furnished a hydraulic plan, we do not know. But we will offer a conjecture at the close of the exposition. It stands here as one of those prudent measures which would be resorted to in Jerusalem in the anticipation of the coming siege; but it would be thought of too late, and in self-reliant alienation from God, with no look directed to Him who had wrought and fashioned that very calamity which they were now seeking to avert by all these precautions, and by whom it had been projected long, long before the actual realization. \fwV might be a plural, according to ch. liv. 5; but the parallel FHtf favours the singular (on the form itself, from W = nfefy see ch. xlii. 5, and at ch. v. 12, i. 30). We have here, and at ch. xxxvii. 26, i.e. within the first part of the book of Isaiah, the same doctrine of " ideas " that forms so universal a key-note of the second part, the authenticity of which has been denied. That which is realized in time lias existed long before as a spiritual pattern, i.e. as an idea in God. God shows this to His prophets; and so far as prophecy foretells the future, whenever the event predicted is fulfilled, the prophecy becomes a proof that the event is the work of God, and was long ago the predetermined counsel of God. The whole of the Scripture presupposes this pre-existence of the divine idea before the historical realization, and Isaiah in Israel (like Plato in the heathen world) was the assiduous interpreter of this supposition. Thus, in the case before us, the fate of Jerusalem is said to have been fashioned " long ago " in God. But Jerusalem might have averted its realization, for it was no decretum absolutum. If Jerusalem repented, the realization would be arrested.
And so far as it had proceeded already, it was a call from Jehovah to repentance. Vers. 12-14. " The Lord, Jehovah of hosts, calls in that day to weeping, and to mourning, and to the pulling out of hair, and to girding with sackcloth; and behold joy and gladness, slaughtering of oxen and killing of sheep, eating of flesh and drinking of wine, eating and drinking, for Ho-morroiv we die? And Jehovah of hosts hath revealed in mine ears, Surely this iniquity shall not be expiated for you until ye die, saith the Lord, Jehovah of hosts" The first condition of repentance is a feeling of pain produced by the punishments of God. But upon Jerusalem they produce the opposite effect. The more threatening the future, the more insensibly and madly do they give themselves up to the rude, sensual enjoyment of the present. Shdthoth is interchanged with shdtho (which is only another form of nh2>? as in ch. vi. 9, xxx. 19), to ring with shdchot (compare Hos. x. 4). There are other passages in which we meet with unusual forms introduced for the sake of the play upon the words (vid. ch. iv. 6, viii. 6, xvi. 9, and compare Ezek. xliii. 11, and the keri of 2 Sam. hi. 25). The words of the rioters themselves, whose conduct is sketched by the inf. abs., which are all governed by hinneh, are simply " for tomorrow we shall die." This does not imply that they feel any pleasure in the thought of death, but indicates a love of life which scoffs at death. Then the unalterable will of the allcommanding God is audibly and distinctly revealed to the prophet. Such scoffing as this, which defies the chastisements of God, will not be expiated in any other way than by the death of the scoffer (cuppar, from cdphar, tegere, means to be covered over, i.e. expiated). This is done in the case of sin either by the justice of God, as in the present instance, or by the merry of God (ch. vi. 7), or by both justice and mercy combined (as in ch. xxvii. 9). In all three cases the expiation is demanded by the divine holiness, which requires a covering between itself and sin, by which sin becomes as though it were not. In this instance the expunging act consists in punishment. The sin of Jerusalem is expiated by the giving up of the sinners themselves to death. The verb temUtMn (ye shall die) is written absolutely, and therefore is all the more dreadful. The Targum renders it " till ye die the second (eternal) death" (mvthdh thinydndh).
So far as this prophecy threatened the destruction of Jerusalem by Assyria, it was never actually fulfilled; but the very opposite occurred. Asshur itself met with destruction in front of Jerusalem. But this was by no means opposed to the prophecy; and it was with this conviction that Isaiah, nevertheless, included the prophecy in the collection which he made at a time when the non-fulfilment was perfectly apparent. It stands here in a double capacity. In the first place, it is a memorial of the mercy of God, which withdraws, or at all events modifies, the threatened judgment as soon as repentance intervenes. The falling away from Assyria did take place; but on the part of Hezekiah and many others, who had taken to heart the prophet's announcement, it did so simply as an affair that was surrendered into the hands of the God of Israel, through distrust of either their own strength or Egyptian assistance. Hezekiah carried out the measures of defence described by the prophet; but he did this for the good of Jerusalem, and with totally different feelings from those which the prophet had condemned. These measures of defence probably included the reservoir between the two walls, which the chronicler does not mention till the close of the history of his reign, inasmuch as he follows the thread of the book of Kings, to which his book stands, as it were, in the relation of a commentary, like the midrash, from which extracts are made. The king regulated his actions carefully by the prophecy, inasmuch as after the threats had produced repentance, vers. 8-11 still remained as good and wise counsels. In the second place, the oracle stands here as the proclamation of a judgment deferred but not repealed. Even if the danger of destruction which threatened Jerusalem on the part of Assyria had been mercifully caused to pass away, the threatening word of Jehovah had not fallen to the ground. The counsel of God contained in the word of prophecy still remained; and as it was the counsel of the Omniscient, the time would surely come when it would pass out of the sphere of ideality into that of actual fact. It remained hovering over Jerusalem like an eagle, and Jerusalem would eventually become its carrion. We have only to compare the temuthun of this passage with the aitoOavelaOe of John viii. 21, to see when the eventual fulfilment took place. Thus the " massa of the valley of vision" became a memorial of mercy to Israel when it looked back to its past history: but when it looked into the future, it was still a mirror of wrath.
Shebna (*«2f; 2 Kings xviii. 18, 26, njSf) is officially described as u over the house" This was the name given to an office of state of great importance in both kingdoms (1 Kings iv. 6, xviii. 3), in fact the highest office of all, and one so vastly superior to all others (ch. xxxvi. 3, xxxvii. 2), that it was sometimes filled by the heir to the throne (2 Chron. xxvi. 21). It was the post of minister of the household, and resembled the Merovingian office of major domus (maire du palais). The person " who was over the house " had the whole of the domestic affairs of the sovereign under his superintendence, and was therefore also called the socen or administrator (from sdcan, related to slidcan, to assist in a friendly, neighbourly manner, or to be generally serviceable: see on Job xxii. 2), as standing nearest to the king. In this post of eminence Shebna had helped to support that proud spirit of self-security and selfindulgent forgetf ulness of God, for which the people of Jerusalem had in the foregoing oracle been threatened with death. At the same time, he may also have been a leader of the Egyptian party of magnates, and with this anti-theocratical policy may have been the opponent of Isaiah in advising the king. Hence the general character of ch. xxii. 1-14 now changes into a distinct and special prophecy against this Shebna. The time at which it was fulfilled was the same as that referred to in ch. xxii. 1-14. There was still deep peace, and the great minister of state was driving about with splendid equipao-es, and engaged in superintending the erection of a family sepulchre. Vers. 15-19. " Thus spake the Lord, Jehovah of hosts, Go, get thee to that steward there, to Shebna the house-mayor. What hast thou here, and whom hast thou here, that thou hast hewn thyself out a sepulchre here, hewing out his sepulchre high up, digging himself a dwelling in rocks? Behold, Jehovah hurleth thee, hurling with a mans throw, and graspeth thee grasping. Coiling, He coileth thee a coil, a ball into a land far and wide; there shalt thou die, and thither the chariots of thy glory, thou shame of the house of thy lord! And I thrust thee from thy post, and from thy standing-place he pulleth thee down." ^"^., go, take thyself in, — not into the house, however, but into the present halting-place. It is possible, at the same time, that the expression may simply mean "take thyself away," as in Gen. xlv. 17 and Ezek. iii. 4. The preposition?K is interchanged with?V, which more commonly denotes the coming of a stronger man upon a weaker one (1 Sam. xii. 12), and is here used to designate the overwhelming power of the prophet's word. u That steward there: " this expression points contemptuously to the position of the minister of the court as one which, however high, was a subordinate one after all. We feel at once, as we read this introduction to the divine address, that insatiable ambition was one of the leading traits in Shebna's character. What Isaiah is to say to Shebna follows somewhat abruptly. The words " and say to him," which are added in the Septuagint, naturally suggest themselves. The question, What hast thou to do here, and whom hast thou to bury here? is put with a glance at Shebna's approaching fate. This- building of a sepulchre was quite unnecessary; Shebna himself would never lie there, nor would he be able to bury his relations there. The threefold repetition of the word " here " (poh) is of very incisive force: it is not here that he will stay, — here, where he is even now placing himself on a bier, as if it were his home. The participles ^vh and,,i?i?n (with chirek compaginis:.see on Ps. cxiii.) are also part of the address. The third person which is introduced here is syntactically regular, although the second person is used as well (ch. xxiii. 2, 3; Hab. ii. 15). Rock-tombs, i.e. a collection of tombs in the form of chambers in the rocks, were indeed to be found to the east of Jerusalem, on the western slope of the Mount of Olives, and in the wall of rock to the west of Jerusalem; but the word mdrom (" high up "), in connection with the threefold " here " {poll), and the contemptuous u that administrator there," warrants us in assuming that mdrom refers to " the height of the sepulchres of the sons of David" (2 Chron. xxxii. 33), i.e. the eastern slope of Zion, where the tombs of the kings were excavated in the rocks. So high did Shebna stand, and so great did he think himself, that he hoped after his death to rest among kings, and by no means down at the bottom. But how he deceived himself! Jehovah would hurl him far away (till, to be long; pilpel, to throw or stretch out to a distance *), "O? rPDPD. This is either equivalent to "OJ npD?D npppD, with a man's throw (Rosenmiiller), or "Q3 is in apposition to JeJiovaJi (Gesenius and Knobel). As taltelah stands too baldly if the latter be adopted, for which reason the vocative rendering u O man," which is found in the Syriac, does not commend itself, and as such an elliptical combination of the absolute with the genitive is by no means unusual (e.g. Prov. xxii. 21, Jer. x. 10), we give the preference to the former. Jerome's rendering, " as they carry off a cock," which he obtained from the mouth of his Hebrceus, cannot be taken into consideration at all; although it has been retained by Schegg (see Geiger, Lesestiicke aus der Mischna^ p. 106). The verb ntjy does not give a suitable sense as used in Jer. xliii. 12, where it merely signifies to cover one's self, not to wrap up; nor can we obtain one from 1 Sam. xv. 19, xxv. 14, xiv. 32, since the verbal forms which we find there, and which are to be traced to W% (from which comes WV, a bird of prey), and not to ntoy, signify " to rush upon anything " (when construed with either 3 or?$). It is better, therefore, to take it, as Michaelis, Rosenmiiller, Knobel, and others do, in the sense of grasping or laying hold of. On the other hand, tzdnaph, which is applied in other instances to the twisting of a turban, also
1 In the later form of the language, this verbal stem signifies generally to move onward; hence tiyytil, motion, or a walk, and metaltelin, furniture, i.e. moveable goods.
signifies to wrap up, make up into a bundle, or coil up. And caJdur, like tzenSphdh, signifies that into which Shebna would be coiled up; for the Caph is not to be taken in a comparative sense, since the use of caddur in the sense of globus or sphcera is established by the Talmud (see at Job xv. 24), whereas the Arabic daur only means gyrus, periodus. Shebna is made into a round coil, or ball, which is hurled into a land stretching out on both sides, i.e. over the broad surface of Mesopotamia, where he flies on farther and farther, without meeting with any obstacle whatever.1 He comes thither to die — he who, by his exaggeration and abuse of his position, has not only dishonoured his office, but the Davidic court as wrell; and thither do his state carriages also come. There can be no doubt that it was by the positive command of Jehovah that Isaiah apostrophized the proud and wealthy Shebna with such boldness and freedom as this. And such freedom was tolerated too. The murder or incarceration of a prophet was a thing of rare occurrence in the kingdom of Judah before the time of Manasseh. In order to pave the way for the institution of another in Shebna' s office, the punishment of deposition, which cannot be understood in any other way than as preceding the punishment of banishment, is placed at the close of the first half of the prophecy. The subject in ver. 196 is not the king, as Luzzatto supposes, but Jehovah, as in ver. 19a (compare ch. x. 12).
Jehovah first of all gives him the blow which makes him tremble in his post, and then pulls him completely down from this his lofty station,2 in order that another worthier man may take his place. Vers. 20-24. " And it will come to pass in that day, that I call to my servant Eliakim the son of Hilkiah, and invest him with thy coat, and I throw thy sash firmly round him, and place thy government in his hand; and he vrill become a
1 Compare the old saying, " The heart of man is an apple driven by a tempest over an open plain."
2 ^pDyftEfi has not only the metheg required by the Icametz on account of the long vowel, and the metheg required by the patach on account of the following chateph patach (the latter of which also takes the place of the metheg, as the sign of a subordinate tone), but also a third metheg with the chirek, which only assists the emphatic pronunciation of the preposition, out which would not stand there at all unless the word had had a disjunctive accent (compare ch. lv. 9, Ps. xviii. 45, Hos. xi. 6).
father to the inhabitants of Jerusalem and to the house of Judah. And I place the key of David upon his shoulder: and when he opens, no man shuts; and ivhen he shuts, no man opens. And I fasten him as a plug in a fast place, and he becomes the seat of honour to his father s house. And the whole mass of his father s house hangs upon him, the offshoots and side-shoots, every small vessel, from the vessel of the basins even to every vessel of the pitchers." Eliakim is called the u servant of Jehovah," as one who was already a servant of God in his heart and conduct; the official service is added for the first time here. This title of honour generally embraces both kinds of service (ch. xx. 3). It is quite in accordance with oriental custom, that this transfer of the office is effected by means of investiture (compare 1 Kings xix. 19): chizzek, with a dbuble accusative, viz. that of the person and that of the official girdle, is used here according to its radical signification, in the sense of girding tightly or girding round, putting the girdle round him so as to cause the whole dress to sit firmly, without hanging loose. The word memshaltekd (thy government) shows how very closely the office forfeited by Shebna was connected with that of the king. This is also proved by the word " father," which is applied in other cases to the king as the father of the land (ch. ix. 5). The "key" signifies the power of the keys; and for this reason it is not given into Eliakim' s hand, but placed upon his shoulder (ch. ix. 5). This key was properly handled by the king (Rev. iii. 7), and therefore by the "house-mayor" only in his stead. The power of the keys consisted not only in the supervision of the royal chambers, but also in the decision who was and who was not to be received into the king's service. There is a resemblance, therefore, to the giving of the keys of the kingdom of heaven to Peter under the New Testament. But there the " binding" and " loosing" introduce another figure, though one similar in sense; whereas here, in the "opening" and " shutting," the figure of the key is retained. The comparison of the institution of Eliakim in his office to the fastening of a tent-peg was all the more natural, that ydthed was also used as a general designation for national rulers (Zech. x. 4), who stand in the same relation to the commonwealth as a tent-peg to the tent which it holds firmly and keeps upright. As the tent-peg is rammed into the ground, so that a person could t Msily sit upon it, the figure is changed, and the tent-peg becomes a seat of honour. As a splendid chair is an ornament to a room, so Eliakim would be an honour to his hitherto undistinguished family. The thought that naturally suggests itself — namely, that the members of the family would sit upon this chair, for the purpose of raising themselves to honour — is expressed by a different figure. Eliakim is once more depicted as a ydthed, but it is as a still higher one this time, — namely, as the rod of a wardrobe, or a peg driven high up into the wall. Upon this rod or peg they hang (thdlu, i.e. one hangs, or there hangs) all the cdbod of the house of Eliakim, i.e. not every one who wished to be honoured and attained to honour in this way (cf. ch. v. 13), but the whole weight of his family (as in ch. viii. 7). This family is then subdivided into its separate parts, and, as we may infer from the juxtaposition of the masculine and feminine nouns, according to its male and female constituents. In BWMS (offshoots) and TOStt ("side-shoots," from JJBV, to push out; compare JPffif, dung, with nx¥? mire) there is contained the idea of a widely ramifying and undistinguished family connection. The numerous rabble consisted of nothing but vessels of a small kind (hakkdtdn), at the best of basons (aggdnoth) like those used by the priests for the blood (Ex. xxiv. 6), or in the house for mixing wine (Song of Sol. vii. 3; Aram, aggono, Ar. iggdne, ingdne, a washing bason), but chiefly of nebdlim, i.e. leather bottles or earthenware pitchers (ch. xxx. 14). The whole of this large but hitherto ignoble family of relations would fasten upon Eliakim, and climb through him to honour. Thus all at once the prophecy, which seemed so full of promise to Eliakim, assumes a satirical tone. We get an impression of the favouring of nephews and cousins, and cannot help asking how this could be a suitable prophecy for Shebna to hear.
We will refer to this again. But in the meantime the impression is an irresistible one; and the Targum, Jerome, Hitzig, and others, are therefore right in assuming that Eliakim is the peg which, however glorious its beginning may have been, comes at last to the shameful end described in ver. 25: " In that day, saith Jehovah of hosts, will the peg that is fastened in a sure place be removed, and be cast down, and fall; and the burden that it bore falls to the ground: for Jehovah hath spoken" The prophet could not express in clearer terms the identity of the peg threatened here with Eliakim himself; for how is it conceivable that the prophet could turn all that he has predicated of Eliakim in vers. 23, 24 into predicates of Shebna? What Umbreit says — namely, that common sense must refer ver. 25 to Shebna — is the very reverse of correct. Eliakim himself is also brought down at last by the greatness of his power, on account of the nepotism to which he has given way. His family makes a wrong use of him; and he is more yielding than he ought to be, and makes a wrong use of his office to favour them! He therefore falls, and brings down with him all that hung upon the peg, i.e. all his relations, who have brought him to ruin through the rapacity with which they have grasped at prosperity.
Hitzig maintains that vers. 24, 25 form a later addition. But it is much better to assume that the prophet wrote down ch. xxii. 15-25 at one sitting, after the predicted fate of the two great ministers of state, which had been revealed to him at two different times, had been actually fulfilled. We know nothing more about them than this, that in the fourteenth year of Hezekiah it was not Shebna, but Eliakim, " who was over the house " (ch. xxxvi. 3, 22, xxxvii. 2). But Shebna also filled another office of importance, namely that of sopher. Was he really taken prisoner and carried away (a thing which is perfectly conceivable even without an Assyrian captivity of the nation generally)? Or did he anticipate the threatened judgment, and avert it by a penitential self-abasement? To this and other questions we can give no reply. One thing alone is certain, — namely, that the threefold prediction of Shebna's fall, of Eliakim' s elevation, and of Eliakim's fall, would not stand where it does, if there were any reason whatever to be ashamed of comparing the prophecy with its fulfilment.
The second leading type of the pride of heathen power closes the series of prophecies against the nations, as Stier correctly observes, just as Babylon opened it. Babylon was the city of the imperial power of the world; Tyre, the city of the commerce of the world. The former was the centre of the greatest land power; the latter of the greatest maritime power. The former subjugated the nations with an iron arm, and ensured its rule by means of deportation; the latter obtained possession of the treasures of the nations in as peaceable a manner as possible, and secured its advantages by colonies and factories. The Phoenician cities formed at first six or eight independent states, the government of which was in the hands of kings. Of these, Sidon was much older than Tyre. The thorah and Homer mention only the former. Tyre did not rise into notoriety till after the time of David. But in the Assyrian era Tyre had gained a kind of supremacy over the rest of the Phoenician states. It stood by the sea, five miles from Sidon; but when hard pressed by enemies it had transferred the true seat of its trade and wealth to a small island, which was three-quarters of a mile farther to the north, and only twelve hundred paces from the mainland. The strait which separated this insular Tyre (Tyrus) from ancient Tyre (Palcetyrus) was mostly shallow, and its navigable waters near the island had only a draught of about eighteen feet, so that on one or two occasions a siege of insular Tyre was effected by throwing up an embankment of earth, — namely, once by Alexander (the embankment still in existence), and once possibly by Nebuchadnezzar, for Tyre was engaged in conflict with the Chaldean empire as well as the Assyrian. Now which of these two conflicts was it that the prophet had in his mind? Eichhorn, Rosenmiiller, Hitzig, and Movers say the Chaldean, and seek in this way to establish the spuriousness of the passage; whereas Gesenius, Maurer, Umbreit, and Knobel say the Assyrian, thinking that this is the only way of sustaining its genuineness. Ewald and Meier say the same; but they pronounce vers. 15—18 an interpolation belonging to the Persian era. De Wette wavers between the genuineness and spuriousness of the whole. In our opinion, however, as in that of Vitringa and those who tread in his footsteps, the question whether the imperial power by which Tyre was threatened was the Assyrian or the Chaldean, is a purely exegetical question, not a critical one. The prophecy commences by introducing the trading vessels of Phoenicia on their return home, as they hear with alarm the tidings of the fate that has befallen their home. Ycr. 1. "Howl, ye ships of Tarshish; for it is laid waste, so that there is no house, no entrance any more I Out of the land of the Chittwans it is made known to them" Even upon the open sea they hear of it as a rumour from the ships that they meet. For their voyage is a very long one: they come from the Phoenician colony on the Spanish Bsetis, or the Guadalquivir, as it was called from the time of the occupation by the Moors. " Ships of Tarshish" are ships that sail to Tartessus (LXX. inaccurately, if\ola KapxySovos). It is not improbable that the whole of the Mediterranean may have been called a the sea of Tarshish; " and hence the rendering adopted by the Targum, Jerome, Luther, and others, naves maris (see Humboldt, Kosmos, ii. 167, 415). These ships are to howl (Jielilu instead of the feminine, as in ch. xxxii. 11) because of the devastation that lias taken place (it is easy to surmise that Tyre has been the victim); for the home and harbour, which the sailors were rejoicing at the prospect of being able to enter once more, have both been swept away. Cyprus was the last station on this homeward passage. The Chittim (written in the legends of coins and other inscriptions with Caph and Chetli) are the inhabitants of the Cyprian harbour of Citium and its territory. But Epiphanius, the bishop of Salamis in the island of Cyprus, says that Citium was also used as a name for the whole island, or even in a still broader sense. Cyprus, the principal mart of the Phoenicians, wras the last landing-place. As soon as they touch the island, the fact which they have only heard of as a rumour upon the open sea, is fully disclosed (nigldh), i.e. it now becomes a clear undoubted certainty, for they are told of it by eye-witnesses who have made their escape to the island. The prophet now turns to the Phoenicians at home, who have this devastation in prospect. — Vers. 2, 3. " Be alarmed, ye inhabitants of the coast I Sidonian merchants, sailing over the sea, filled thee once. And the sowing of Sichor came upon great waters, the harvest of the Nile, her store; and she became gain for nations." The suffixes of N?*? (to fill with wares and riches) and nsun (the bringing in, viz. into barns and granaries) refer to the word *K, which is used here as a feminine for the name of a country, and denotes the Phoenician coast, including the insular Tvre. " Sidonian merchants" are the Phoenicians