THE two great powers of western Asia, in the days of Isaiah, were Assyria and Egypt or Ethiopia, the last two being wholly or partially united under Tirhakah, whose name and exploits are recorded in Egyptian monuments still extant, and who is expressly said in Scripture (2 Kings 19: 9) to have come out against Sennacherib. With one or the other of these great contending powers, Judah was commonly confederate, and of course at war with the other. Hezekiah is explicitly reproached by Rabshakeh (Is. 36: 9) with relying upon Egypt, i. e. the Ethiopico-egyptian empire. These historical facts, together with the mention of Gush in v. 1, and the appropriateness of the figures in vs. 4, 5, to the destruction of Sennacherib’s army, give great probability to the hypothesis now commonly adopted, that the Prophet here announces that event to Ethiopia, as about to be effected by a direct interposition of Jehovah, and without human aid. On this sup position, although not without its difficulties, the chapter before us is much clearer in itself and in its connexion with the one before it, than if we assume with some interpreters, both Jews and Christians, that it relates to the restoration of the Jews, or to the overthrow of the Egyptians or Ethiopians themselves as the enemies of Israel. At the same time, some of the expressions here employed admit of so many interpretations, that it is best to give the whole as wide an application as the language will admit, on the ground before suggested, that it constitutes a part of a generic prophecy or picture of God’s dealings with the foes of his people, including illustrations drawn from particular events, such as the downfall of Syria and Israel, and the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army.
The Prophet first invites the attention of the Ethiopians and of the whole world to a great catastrophe as near at hand, vs. 1-3. He then describes the catastrophe itself, by the beautiful figure of a vine or vineyard suffered to blossom and bear fruit, and then, when almost ready to be gath ered, suddenly destroyed, vs. 4-6. In consequence of this event, the same people, who had been invoked in the beginning of the chapter, are described as bringing presents to Jehovah at Jerusalem, v. 7.
1. Ho! land of rustling wings, which art beyond the rivers of Cush (or Ethiopia)! •”•in is rendered woe! by the Septuagint, Cocceius, and Paulus, hark I by Augusti, but by most other writers, as a particle of calling, ho! or ha! ^sba is explained by some as an intensive or frequentative form of te a shadow, in which sense it is rendered by the Peshito and Aquila (crx/« nt^Qvyav) — here used as a figure for protection (Calvin) — or in allusion to the shadow cast by a double chain of mountains (Saadias, Abulwalid, Grotius, Junius, Vitringa, Dathe) — or to the opposite direction of the shadows in winter and summer under the tropics (Vogt, Aurivillius, Eichhorn, Knobel) — a circumstance particularly mentioned in connexion with Meroe by Pliny (in Meroe bis anno absumi umbras), Lucan (donee umbras extendat Meroe), and other ancient writers. Knobel takes C^BSD in the sense of sides (ch. 30: 20. 11: 12. Ez. 7: 2), and supposes the expression to have been suggested by the common phrase shadow of wings (Ps. 17: 8. 36: 8. 57: 2. 63: 8). But as the double form }>&% in every other case has reference to sound, some suppose an allusion to the noise made by the locusts, one of the names of which in Hebrew is ^sbs (Paulus, J. D. Michaelis) — some to the rushing sound of rivers (Umbreit) — others to the clash of arms or other noises made by armies on the march, here called wings by a common figure (Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Hitzig, Maurer, Hendewerk). But Knobel denies that frps, absolutely used, can signify an ar my. The plural n^bs^s is elsewhere used in the sense of cymbals, and the ‘Vulgate here has terrae cymbalo alarum. Bochart, Huet, Clericus, and Lowth, suppose the word to be here applied to the Egyptian sistrum, a species of cymbal, consisting of a rim or frame of metal, with metallic rods or plates passing through and across it, the extremities of which might be poetically called wings. From the resemblance of the ancient ships to cymbals, or of their sails to wings, or from both together, the phrase before us is ap plied to ships by the Septuagint (nloicov nrtQvyeg), Targum, Kimchi, and Ewald (o Land gefliigelter Kahne!). — The relative ^tux is construed with the nearest antecedent t^335 by Cocceius and J. H. Michaelis, but by most other writers with the remoter antecedent ‘px. b insa is understood to mean on this side by Vitringa, Hitzig and Hendewerk — on that side or be yond by Gesenius, Rosenmuller, Maurer, Umbreit, and most of the older writers — at the side or along by Saadias, Grotius, Junius, Lowth, Barnes, Ewald, Knobel, and others. Cush is supposed by Wahl to mean Chiisistan or Turan, both here and in Gen. 2: 13 — by Bochart, Ethiopia and the opposite part of Arabia, but by Gesenius and the later writers, Ethiopia alone. The rivers of Cush are supposed by some to be the Nile and its branches — by others, the Astaboras, Astapus, and Astasobas, mentioned by Strabo as the rivers of Meroe, which last name Knobel traces to the Ethiopic root ^n as he does the Hebrew Saba to the synonymous K30, both implying an abundant irrigation. The country thus described is understood by Cyril, Jerome, Bochart, Vitringa, and Lowth, to be Egypt; by most other writers Ethiopia; but by Knobel, Saba or Meroe, a region contiguous to Ethiopia and watered by its rivers, often mentioned with it but distinguished from it -(Gen. 10: 7. Isa. 43: 3. 45: 14). Besides the usual construction of the first clause, may be mentioned that of Doderlein, Hensler, and Dereser, who make ^sbs a verb (er schwirrt), and that of August!; ‘ hearken, oh land, to the rushing of his wings who is beyond the rivers of Ethiopia.’
2. Sending by sea ambassadors, and in vessels of papyrus on the face of the waters. Go ye light (or swift) messengers, to a nation drawn and shorn, to a people terrible since it existed and onwards, a nation of double strength, and trampling, whose land the streams divide. Nearly every word and phrase of this difficult verse has been the subject of discordant explanations, rfjten is translated in the second person (thou that sendest) by Cocceius, Clericus, Vitringa, and Henderson, by most other writers in the third. It refers not to God but to the people mentioned in v. 1. Vi tringa construes it with DS> understood, Gesenius with “px in the sense of ns, and therefore masculine, ta11 is variously explained to mean the Red Sea, the Mediterranean, and the Nile (Is. 19: 5. Nah. 3: 8). Bochart takes d^x in the sense of images, supposing an allusion to the Egyptian practice, mentioned by Cyril, Procopius, and Lucian, of sending an image of Osiris annually on the surface of the sea to Byblus in Phenicia. The Septuagint renders the word hostages (OJUJQO); but all the latest writers are agreed in giving it the sense of ambassadors, to wit, those sent to Ethiopia, or from Ethiopia to Judah. The next phrase is rendered in the Septuagint, BxiGTolag fiiftlivag, but is now universally explained to mean vessels made of the papyrus plant, the use of which upon the Nile is expressly mentioned by Theophrastus, Pliny, Lucan, and Plutarch. The second clause of the verse (12^ etc.) is regarded by some writers as the language of the people who had just been addressed, as if he had said, ‘ send ing ambassadors (and saying to them) go etc.’ More probably, however, the Prophet is still speaking in the name of God. The following epithets are applied by some to the Jews, and supposed to be descriptive of their de graded and oppressed condition. Gesenius and the later writers apply them to the Ethiopians and make them descriptive of their warlike qualities. ^IUBB according to usage means drawn or drawn out, which is applied by some to the shape of the country, by others to the numbers engaged in foreign war, by the Septuagint and Hitzig to the stature of the people. This meaning is rejected by Gesenius in his Commentary, but approved in his Thesaurus. The meanings convulsed (Vulgate) and torn (Luther) are not justified by usage. Those of ancient, inaccessible, and scattered, are entirely conjectural. BIIE for aiiaa properly denotes shorn or shaven, and is applied by some to the Egyptian and Ethiopian practice ‘of shaving the head and beard, while others understand it as a figure for robbery and spoliation. Some understand it to mean smoothed or smooth, and by implication beautiful. Others apply it to the character, and take it in the sense of brave or fierce. Kin IBis by some applied to time, from the first and hitherto, from the earliest time; from this time, by others to place, from this place and onward. Many interpreters make it comparative, more terrible than this, or than any other, more terrible than this and further off. In favour of applying it to time, are the analogous expressions in 1 Sam. 18: 9, while 1 Sam. 20: 22 justifies the local sense. *p~T is explained by Clericus to be the proper name of the Egyptian plant called Iciki. Most writers take it in its usual sense of line, i. e. as some suppose, a rule or precept, the people being described as burdened with superstitious rites; according to others, a measuring line, meted out or meting out others to destruction; according to a third class, a boundary line, enlarging its boundaries. Some make it mean on every side and others by degrees, in both cases qualifying that which follows. But the latest German writers make the word identical with the Arabic g.j> meaning power, the reduplication signifying double strength. rioi^E must then have an active sense, a people of trampling, i. e. trampling on their enemies. Those who apply the description to the Jews give the word of course a passive sense, a people trampled on by their oppressors. By rivers, in the last clause, some sup pose nations to be meant, or the Assyrians in particular; but most writers understand it literally as a description of the country. Ktn is explained by the Rabbins as a synonyme of tin, to spoil or plunder, and a few manuscripts read itn. Others give the verb the sense of nourishing, water ing, overflowing, washing away, promising; but the best sense is that of cutting up, cutting through, or simply dividing, in allusion to the abundant irrigation of Ethiopia. Vitringa supposes this clause to refer to the annual overflowing of the Nile, and the one before it to the Egyptian practice of treading the grain into the soil when softened by the inundation.
3. AH ye inhabitants of the world and dwellers on the earth shall see as it were the raising of a standard on the mountains, and shall hear as it were the blowing of a trumpet. Another construction, more gener ally adopted, makes the verbs imperative, and the 2 a particle of time, as it usually is before the infinitive. So the English Version: see ye when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains, and when he bloweth a trumpet hear ye. There seems, however, to be no sufficient reason for departing from the strict translation of the verbs as future: and if this be retained, it is better to make D a particle of comparison. In either case, the verse invites the attention of the world to some great event. The restricted explanation of ^sn and pnK, as meaning land or country, is entirely arbitrary. According to Vitringa, Gesenius, Rosenmuller, and Maurer, the signals meant are those of the As syrian invader, or those announcing his destruction; but according to Doderlein, Hitzig, Hendewerk, and Knobel, the signals by means of which the Ethiopians would collect their forces.
4. For thus said (or saith) Jehovah to me, I will rest (remain quiet), and will look on (as a mere spectator) in my dwelling place, like a serene heat upon herbs, like a cloud of dew (or dewy cloud), in the heat of harvest (i. e. the heat preceding harvest, or the heat by which the crop is ripened). This verse assigns a reason for the preceding invitation to attend. The obvious meaning of the figure is, that God would let the enemy proceed in the execution of his purposes until they were nearly accomplished. Gesenius and the later writers explain a before fifi and 53 as a particle of time, l *during the heat and dewy cloud i. e. the summer sea son. This use of the particle, which is very common before the infinitive, is rare and doubtful before nouns, and ought not to be assumed without necessity. According to this construction, the words merely indicate the time of God’s apparent inaction. If we give the 3 its proper sense as a comparative particle, the meaning seems to be that he would not only abstain from interfering with the enemy, but would even favour his success to a certain point, as dew and sunshine would promote the growth of plants. The latest writers give to *rix the sense of sunshine, and explain the whole phrase to mean the clear or genial heat which accompanies the sunshine and is produced by it. But as this requires the preposition (^§) to be taken in an unusual sense, it is better perhaps to regard lix as synonymous with rniK, herb or herbage. Some of the Rabbins explain *vis, here and in Job 36: 22. 37: 11, as meaning *rain (like clear heat after rain); but of this sense there are no decisive examples. Junius and Lowth make ^I’aa the object of the contemplation, whereas it is merely added to express the idea of rest at home, as opposed to activity abroad. It is not necessary, therefore, to explain the ncun as meaning heaven, although this is better than its application to the earthly sanctuary.
5. For before the harvest, as the bloom is finished, and the flower be comes a ripening grape, he cuts down the branches with the pruning knives, and the tendrils he removes, he cuts away. The obvious meaning of the figures is, that although God would suffer the designs of the enemy to approach completion, he would nevertheless interfere at the last moment and destroy both him and them. Some writers give to *3 the sense of but, in order to make the antithesis clearer; but in this as in many other cases the particle refers to something more remote than the immediately preceding words, and is correctly explained by Knobel as correlative and parallel with the *3 at the beginning of v. 4. As if he had said, let all the world await the great catastrophe—for I will let the enemy almost attain his end —but let them still attend—/or before it is attained, I will destroy him. The verbs in the last clause may either be referred directly to Jehovah as their subject, or construed indefinitely, one shall cut them down. Jarchi supplies the participle or cognate noun (misn ms) as in ch. 16: 10. The form tnn is derived by Gesenius from T^FI, by Hitzig fromttfi, and by Knobel from:n5, but all agree as to the meaning. The verb rnnj receives its form from the predicate, and not from the subject which is feminine. (See Gesenius, § 134.)
6. They shall be left together to the wild bird of the mountains and to the wild beasts of the earth (or land), and the wild bird shall summer thereon, and every wild beast of the earth (or land) thereon shall winter ‘. It is commonly supposed that there is here a transition from the figure of a vineyard to that of a dead body, the branches cut off and thrown away being suddenly transformed into carcasses devoured by beasts and birds. For alike combination, vide supra, ch. J4: 19. But this interpretation, though perhaps the most natural, is not absolutely necessary. As the act of devouring is not expressly mentioned, the reference may be, not to the carnivorous habits of the animals, but to their wild and solitary life. In that case the sense would be that the amputated branches, and the desolated vineyard itself, shall furnish lairs and nests for beasts and birds which commonly frequent the wildest solitudes, implying abandonment and utter desolation. This seems to be the meaning put upon the words by Luther, who translates the verbs shall make their nests and lie therein (darinnen nisten darinnen liegen). The only reason for preferring this interpretation is that it precludes the necessity of assuming a mixed metaphor, or an abrupt exchange of one for another, both which, however, are too common in Isaiah to excite surprise. On either supposition, the general meaning oi the verse is obvious. The form of the last clause is idiomatic, the birds being said to spend the summer and the beasts the winter, not with reference to any real difference in their habits, but for the purpose of expressing the idea, that beasts and birds shall occupy the spot throughout the year. According to the common explanation of the verse as referring to dead bodies, it is a hyperbolical description of their multitude, as furnishing repast for a whole year to the beasts and birds of prey.
7. At that time shall be brought a gift to Jehovah of Hosts, a people drawn out and shorn, and from a people terrible since it has been and onward (or still more terrible and still further off), a nation of double power and trampling, whose land streams divide, to the place of the name of Jehovah of Hosts, Mount Zion. Here, as in v. 2, the sense of some particular expressions is so doubtful, that it seems better to retain, as far as possible, the form of the original, with all its ambiguity, than to attempt an explanatory paraphrase. All are agreed that we have here the prediction of an act of homage to Jehovah, occasioned by the great event described in the preceding verses. The Jews, who understand the second verse as a description of the sufferings endured by Israel, explain this as a prophecy of their return from exile and dispersion, aided and as it were presented as an offering to Jehovah by the heathen. (Vide infra, ch. 66: 20.) The older Christian writers understand it as predicting the conversion of the Egyptians or Ethiopians to the true religion. Whoever, says Gesenius. is fond of tracing the fulfilment of such prophecies in later history, may find this one verified in Rev. 8: 26 sq., and still more in the fact that Abyssinia is at this day the only great Christian power of the east. Gesenius himself, with the other recent Germans, understands the verse as describing a solemn contemporary recognition of Jehovah’s power and divinity, as displayed in the slaughter of Sennacherib’s army. According to Gesenius, two different nations are described both here and in v. 2, an opinion which he thinks is here confirmed by the insertion of the copulative i before the second dS. But Knobel refers to ch. 27: 1, and Zech. 9: 9, as proving that this form of expression does not necessarily imply a plurality of subjects. A stronger argument in favour of Gesenius’s hypothesis is furnished by the insertion of the preposition before the second d». The most natural construction of the words would seem to be that the gift to Jehovah should consist of one people offered by another. Most interpreters, however, including Gesenius himself, infer that “,0 must be supplied before the first ds also—a gift shall be brought (from) a people etc. and from a people etc.—whether the latter be another or the same. If another, it may be Ethiopia as distinguished from Egypt, or Meroe as distinguished from Ethiopia. If the same, it may either be Egypt or more probably the kingdom of Tirhakah, including Ethiopia and Upper Egypt. The substitution of d? here for na in v. 2, and the antithesis between them there, are regarded by Cocceius as significant and founded on the constant usage of ^I’a to denote a heathen and ds a believing people. Most other writers seem to regard them as poetical equivalents. The place of God’s name is not merely the place called by his name, as explained by Clericus and J. D. Michaelis, but the place where his name, i. e. the manifestation of his attributes, resides.
