ABOUT the time of the Assyrian attack on Ashdod, the Prophet is directed to walk naked and barefoot as a sign of the defeat and captivity of the Egyptians and Ethiopians who were at war with Assyria. The first verse fixes the date of this symbolical transaction; the second contains the divine command and the record of its execution; the third and fourth explain the meaning of the symbol; the fifth and sixth predict its effect, or rather that of the event which it prefigured. The questions which have been raised, as to the date of the composition and the fulfilment of the prophecy, will be most conveniently considered in the course of the detailed interpretation. It may be added here, however, that Cocceius, with all other interpreters, applies this chapter to the literal Egypt, but instead of admitting any inconsistency between this hypothesis and that which supposes ch. 19 to relate to the mystical Egypt, he ingeniously converts the juxtaposition into an argument for his opinion, by alleging that the chapter now before us was added for the very purpose of showing that the foregoing promises and threatenings did not belong to the literal Egypt.
1. In the year of Tartan’s coming to Ashdod, in Sargon king of Assyria’s sending him (i. e. when Sargon king of Assyria sent him), and he fought with Ashdod (i. e. besieged it) and took it. Ashdod was one of the five cities of the Philistines (Josh. 11: 22. 15: 46. 1 Sam. 5: 1), considered on account of its strong fortifications (from which its name is supposed to be derived) the key of Egypt, and therefore frequently attacked in the wars between Egypt and Assyria. According to Herodotus, Psammetichus besieged it twenty-nine years. This, if not an exaggeration, is the longest siege in history, and probably took place after what is here recorded, to recover Ashdod from Assyria. Its site is marked by a village still called Esdud (Robinson’s Palestine II. 368). The name of Sargon nowhere else occurs. Tartan appears again as a general under Sennacherib (2 Kings 18: 17). From this Usher, Grotius, Lowth, and Doederlein infer that Sargon and Sennacherib are one and the same person. According to Jerome, this king had seven names; according to Kimchi and the Talmud, eight. This looks very much like a Jewish figment designed to render the alleged identity more probable. Marsham and J. D. Michaelis identify Sargon with Esarhaddon; Sanctius, Vitringa, and Eichhorn, with Shalmaneser. All these suppositions are less probable than the obvious one, that Sargon was a king of Assyria mentioned only here, because his reign was very short, and this was the only occurrence that brought him into contact with the Jews. That he was not the immediate successor of Sennacherib, is clear from ch. 37: 38, and from the fact which seems to be implied in 2 Chr. 32: 21, that Tartan perished in the great catastrophe. The most plausible hypothesis, and that now commonly adopted, is, that he reigned three or four years between Shalmaneser and Sennacherib (according to Knobel’s computation, from 718 to 715 B. C.). It is said indeed in one of the Apocryphal books (Tob. 1:15) that Sennacherib was the son of Enemessar (i. e. Shalmaneser); but even allowing more weight to this authority than it deserves, Sargon may have been an elder brother. In the Vatican text of the Septuagint this name is written ‘Aqva, in the Complutensian NctQva, by Aquila and Theodotion £aQayav. The immediate succession of these two kings readily accounts for Tartan’s being named as an officer of both, as Vitringa observes that Abner served under Saul and Ishbosheth, and Benaiah under David and Solomon. So the Duke of Wellington, in our day, has served under four successive sovereigns. Nothing, therefore, can be proved in this way as to the identity of Sargon and Sennacherib. Hendewerk even questions the propriety of inferring that they reigned in immediate succession, on the ground that Tartan, like Rabshakeh and Rabsaris (2 Kings 18: 17), was not a proper name but an official title. Hendewerk himself, however, acquiesces in the common chronological hypothesis, although he questions this mode of proving it. The name Tartan is written in the Alexandrian 24 text of the Septuagint Nd&av, in the Vatican TavdOar. Here, as in ch. 6: 1, it is disputed whether in the year of Tartan’s coming means before or after that occurrence. The truth is, it means neither, but leaves that question undetermined, or at most to be determined by the context. Those who refer the last two verses of the chapter to the Philistines, and suppose the prophecy to have been intended to forewarn them of the issue of the siege of Ashdod and of the folly of relying on Egyptian or Ethiopian aid against Assyria, must of course assume that this symbolical transaction took place before the arrival of Tartan, or at least before the end of the siege. Those, on the other hand, who suppose it to refer to the Jews themselves, find it more natural to assume that the prophecy was uttered after the fall -of Ashdod. In this case, the recording of the prophecy may have been contemporaneous with its publication. In the other case, we must suppose it to have been reduced to writing after the event. Here, as in ch. 7: 1-16, Gesenius infers from the use of the third person, that the chapter was not written by Isaiah himself, but by a scribe or amanuensis. Here too, as in ch. 7:1, Ewald regards the last clause as a parenthetical anticipation, and the next verse as continuing the narrative directly. As if he had said: ’ in the year that Tartan came to Ashdod (which he besieged and finally took), at that time etc.’ But this supposition is at least unnecessary. On the change of construction from the infinitive to the future, and the collocation of the subject and the object in the first clause, vide supra, ch. 5: 24.
2. At that time spake Jehovah by the hand of Isaiah the son of Amoz saying, Go, and thou shalt open (i. e. loose) the sackcloth from upon thy loins, and thy shoe thou shalt putt off from upon thy foot. And he did so, going naked and barefoot. Maimonides, Kimchi, Staudlin, and Hendewerk, suppose this to have been done merely in vision. This supposition is not only altogether arbitrary, i. e. without any intimation in the text, but is rendered more improbable by the expression and he did so, as well as by the statement in the next verse that the act required was to be a sign or symbol to the spectators, which certainly implies that it was really exhibited. This supposition of an ideal exposure seems to have been resorted to, in order to avoid the conclusion that the Prophet really appeared before the people in a state of nudity. It is commonly agreed, however, that this was not the case. The word naked is used to express partial denudation in all languages. The examples quoted by Vitringa from Seneca, Suetonius, and Aurelius Victor, have been copied or referred to by most later writers. As biblical examples, may be cited 1 Sam. 19; 24. 2 Sam. 6: 20. Amos 2: 16. John 21: 7. In the case before us, we may either suppose that the pto was an upper garment which he threw en tirely off, or an inner garment which he opened by ungirding it, or a girdle itself which he loosened and perhaps removed. Sackcloth was a common mourning dress, and some suppose that Isaiah was now wearing it in token of his grief for the exile of the ten tribes (Kimchi, Lightfoot). Others understand it as an official or ascetic dress worn by the prophets (Zech. 13: 4), as for instance by Elijah (2 Kings 1: 8) and by John the Baptist (Matt. 3: 4). Others again suppose that it is mentioned as a cheap coarse dress worn by the Prophet in common with the humbler class of people. The name p::J appears to have reference merely to the coarseness of the texture; but the cloth would seem to have been usually made of hair, and, in later times at least, of a black colour (Rev. 6: 12). The expression by the hand denotes ministerial agency or intervention, and is often used in reference to communications made to the people through the prophets. (Ex.4: 13. 1 Sam. 16: 20. Jer. 37: 2.) So in this case, the divine communication was really addressed to the people, though the words immediately ensuing are addressed to the Prophet himself. There is no ground, therefore, for suspecting, with Hendewerk, that the words i*a etc. were interpolated afterwards as an explanatory gloss, or for assuming, with Gesenius, that ^2 is here used like a corresponding phrase in Arabic to mean before or in the presence of, as some suppose it does in 1 Sam. 21: 14 and Job 15: 27. It is not even necessary to suppose that the phrase has exclusive reference to the symbolical action. Gill: “ he spoke by him by the sign he used according to his order, and he spoke to him to use the sign.” The simplest and most natural solution is, that what was said to the Prophet was obviously said through him to the people. Above thirty manuscripts and several editions read ^rn in the plural, but of course without a change of meaning.
3. And Jehovah said, A.S my servant Isaiah hath gone naked, and barefoot three years a sign and symbol concerning Egypt and concerning Ethiopia. Here begins the divine explanation of the symbolical act before commanded. Although the design of this transaction was to draw attention by exciting surprise, MJi’a does not merely mean a wonder, but a portent or extraordinary premonition. ^? might here be taken in the more specific sense of against, but the more general meaning is sufficient and agrees well with the context. Cush has been variously explained to mean a part of Arabia on the coast of the Red Sea (Bochart), or this part of Arabia with the opposite part of Africa (Vitringa); but the latest authorities confirm the ancient explanation of the word as meaning Ethiopia. In ‘the prophecies belonging to the reign of Hezekiah, Egypt and Ethiopia are frequently combined, either because they were in close alliance, or because an Ethiopian dynasty then reigned in Upper Egypt. It has been a question with interpreters whether the words three years are to be connected with what follows or what goes before. The Septuagint gives both solutions by repeating My. The masoretic interpunction throws the words into the second clause, three years a sign etc. This construction is adopted by some modern writers for the purpose of avoiding the conclusion that Isaiah walked naked and bare foot for the space of three years, which is certainly the obvious and prima facie meaning of the words. Those who adhere to the masoretic accents, understand the second clause to mean a three years’ sign and wonder, i. e. either a sign of something to occur in three years or to continue three years, or a sign for three years of a subsequent event. Those who connect three years with what precedes either understand the language strictly as denoting that the Prophet continued to go naked and barefoot for that space of time, or palliate the harshness of this supposition by assuming that he only appeared thus when he went abroad, or at certain set times, or occasionally. The most improbable hypothesis of all is that of a transposition in the text, ni» D^attJ ttjbia for D^IS irbu: xix (Gesenius), unless the preference be due to that of Lowth, that the original reading was three days, or to that of Vitringa, that three days was meant to be supplied by the reader. On the whole, the simplest and most satisfactory solution is that proposed by Hitzig, who sup poses the Prophet to have exposed himself but once in the way described, after which he continued to be a sign and wonder for three years, i. e. till the fulfilment of the prophecy. This explanation avoids the difficulty as to the three years’ exposure, and at the same time adheres to the masoretic interpunction. The three years have been variously understood, as the duration of the siege of Ashdod, as the duration of the exile threatened in the next verse, and as the interval which should elapse between the prophecy and its fulfilment. Of these three hypotheses the second is the least probable, while the first and third may be combined.
4. So shall the king of Assyria lead the captivity (t. e. the captives} of Egypt and the exiles of Ethiopia, young and old, naked and barefoot, with their buttocks uncovered, the nakedness (or disgrace) of Egypt. This verse completes the comparison begun in that before it. Sfia is commonly applied to flocks and herds, and like the Latin ago, corresponds both to lead and drive in English. Our language does not furnish two equivalents to latfi and Mb& as abstract nouns, exile being never used as a collective for exiles. The sense of the original is expressed, with a change of form, in the English Version (the Egyptians prisoners and the Ethiopians captives), and by Luther (das gefangene Egypten und vertrieoene Mohrenland). The phrase fi^gtl o11*??; is not meant to exclude men in the prime of life because already slain in battle (Musculus), but comprehends all ages. It is clear from this verse that Isaiah’s exposure did not prefigure the spoliation of the Egyptians (Barnes), but their personal captivity. It is also clear from a comparison of the type and antitype, that the nakedness of v. 2 was a partial one, since captives were not commonly reduced to a state of absolute nudity. This is confirmed by the addition of the word barefoot in both cases, which would be superfluous if naked had its strictest sense. The last clause is separately construed by Ewald: they who are thus uncovered are the shame of Egypt. Other interpreters continue the construction from the previous clause. rr\y is not to be taken in its strict sense, as in apposition with the phrase before it, but in its secondary sense of shame or igno miny, with or without a preposition understood. The omission of Ethiopia in this last clause is no ground for supposing it to be interpolated in the other (Hitzig), nor is there an allusion to the greater sensitiveness of the Egyptians (Vitringa). The omission is, so to speak, an accidental one, i. e. without design or meaning. Even Hendewerk exclaims against the tasteless and unmeaning maxim, that a writer who repeats his own expressions must do it with servile exactness, or be suspected of some deep design in the omission. Connected as Egypt and Ethiopia were in fact and in the fore going context, either name includes the other. The Icing of Assyria here meant is neither Nebuchadnezzar (Cocceius), nor Esarhaddon, nor Shalmaneser; but either Sennacherib or Sargon himself. The modern German writers suppose this prediction to have been fulfilled in the conquest of No- Ammon (i. e. Diospolis or Thebes) mentioned in Nah. 3: 8 as a recent event. How long beforehand the prediction was uttered, is a question of small moment and one which cannot be decided. There is no ground, however, for the supposition that the interval was so short as to convert the prophecy into a mere conjecture or an act of sagacious forecast. Equally vain are the attempts to determine whether the king of Assyria remained at home during the siege of Ashdod, or was then engaged in his attack upon Egypt. The chronological hypotheses of Usher, Marsham, and Vitringa, all assume that Sargon was identical either with Shalmaneser, Esarhaddon, or Sennacherib. ^siton is explained by Jarchi as a singular with a supernumerary syllable, by Kimchi and Gesenius as an old form of the plural absolute, by Ewald as an old form of the plural construct. On the construction with the following noun, vide supra, ch. 1:4. 3: 16.
5. And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation and of Egypt their boast. This is the effect to be produced by the catastrophe just threatened. Both the Hebrew verbs take ^ after them, as afraid and ashamed take of in English; but the full sense of inn is that they shall be confounded, filled with consternation, at the fate of those in whom they trusted for deliverance, ascis that to which they look for help. It is used in the same sense Zech. 9: 5. According to Hitzig, 12273 properly belongs to D*ns*, but was taken from it to be joined with the interpolated ttSw, its place being supplied by the inappropriate word rnasfi. Knobel, on the contrary, sees a peculiar beauty in the distinction between Ethiopia, to which they merely looked for help, and Egypt, from which they had formerly received it, and in which they therefore gloried. The verbs in this verse are indefinite. Some refer them to the Philistines, others to the Jews, and a third class to an Egyptian faction in Jerusalem. These are mere conjectures, nor can any thing more be ascertained from the intentionally vague terms of the text. That the words refer to the Philistines, is inferred from the mention of the siege of Ashdod in the first verse. But this is by no means a necessary inference, since Ashdod was attacked and taken, not as a town of the Philistines, but as a frontier post of great importance to both parties in the war. So far then as the Jews were interested in the war at all, they were interested in the fate of Ashdod, and the mention of this siege as one of the principal events of the campaign is altogether natural. In favour of the reference to Judah may be also urged the want of any clear example in Isaiah of a prophecy exclusively intended for the warning or instruction of a foreign power. In either case, the meaning of the verse is, that they who had relied on Egypt and its ally Ethiopia for aid against Assyria, whether Jews or Philistines or both, should be confounded at beholding Egypt and Ethiopia themselves subdued.
6. And the inhabitant of this isle (or coast) shall say in that day, Behold, thus (or such) is our expectation, whither we fled for help, to be delivered from the presence of the Icing of Assyria. And how shall we (ourselves) escape 1 The disappointment described in the foregoing verse is now expressed by those who felt it. The argument is one a fortiori. If the protectors were subdued, what must become of the protected? The pronoun in the last clause is emphatic, as it usually is when not essential to the sense. The Hebrew has< has no exact equivalent in English. Three distinct shades or gradations of meaning seem to be clearly marked in usage. The first is that of land as opposed to water; the second that of coast as opposed to inland; the third that of island as opposed to mainland. The last, although commonly expressed in most translations, is perhaps the least frequent of the three. The word here denotes, not Lower Egypt or the Delta of the Nile (Clericus), but the southeastern shore of the Mediterranean, here called this coast, as Hendewerk observes, in order to distinguish it from that coast, viz. Ethiopia and Egypt, which had just before been mentioned. As to the extent of country meant to be included, nothing of course can be determined from the word itself, which is designedly indefinite. Hitzig, in accordance with his view of the whole prophecy, restricts the application to the land of the Philistines, as the maritime tract in the south west of Palestine, adjacent to Egypt. Others with more probability regard it as denoting Palestine itself, in the large modern sense, but with particular reference to Judah.—Thus or such is our expectation i. e. this is the end of it, you see what has become of it, you see the fate of that to which we looked for help (^a^); how then can we ourselves («r:3Nt) be delivered or escape? See a similar expression 2 Kings 10: 4.
