Isaiah 20 commentary

Isaiah was a sign to the people by his unusual dress, when he walked abroad. He commonly wore sackcloth as a prophet, to show himself mortified to the world. He was to loose this from his loins; to wear no upper garments, and to go barefooted. This sign was to signify, that the Egyptians and Ethiopians should be led away captives by the king of Assyria, thus stripped. The world will often deem believers foolish, when singular in obedience to God. But the Lord will support his servants under the most trying effects of their obedience; and what they are called upon to suffer for his sake, commonly is light, compared with what numbers groan under from year to year from sin. Those who make any creature their expectation and glory, and so put it in the place of God, will, sooner or later, be ashamed of it. But disappointment in creature-confidences, instead of driving us to despair, should drive us to God, and our expectation shall not be in vain. The same lesson is in force now; and where shall we look for aid in the hour of necessity, but to the Lord our Righteousness?

1. In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod. In the preceding chapter Isaiah prophesied about the calamity which threatened Egypt, and at the same time promised to it the mercy of God. He now introduces the same subject, and shews that Israel will be put to shame by this chastisement of the Egyptians, because they placed their confidence in Egypt. He now joins Ethiopia, which makes it probable that the Ethiopians were leagued with the Egyptians, as I have formerly remarked, and as we shall see again at the thirty-seventh chapter.

First, we must observe the time of this prediction. It was when the Jews were pressed hard by necessity to resort, even against their will, to foreign nations for assistance. Sacred history informs us (2 Kings 18:17) that Tartan was one of Sennacherib’s captains, which constrains us to acknowledge that this Sargon was Sennacherib, who had two names, as may be easily learned from this passage. We must also consider what was the condition of Israel, for the ten tribes had been led into captivity. Judea appeared almost to be utterly ruined, for nearly the whole country was conquered, except Jerusalem, which was besieged by Rabshakeh. (2 Kings 18:13.) Tartan, on the other hand, was besieging Ashdod. Sacred history (2 Kings 18:17) mentions three captains; “Tartan, and Rabsaris, and Rabshakeh”

FT318 “The Egyptians prisoners (Heb. the captivity of Egypt) and Ethiopians captives.” — Eng. Ver. “The captives of Egypt and the exiles of Cush.” — Lowth and this makes it probable that Sennacherib’s forces were at that time divided into three parts, that at the same instant he might strike terror on all, and might throw them into such perplexity and confusion that they could not render assistance to each other. Nothing was now left for the Jews but to call foreign nations to their aid. In the mean time, Isaiah is sent by God to declare that their expectation is vain in relying on the Egyptians, against whom the arm of the Lord was now lifted up, and who were so far from assisting them, that they were unable to defend themselves against their enemies. Hence the Jews ought to acknowledge that they are justly punished for their unbelief, because they had forsaken God and fled to the Egyptians.

We must consider the end which is here proposed, for the design of God was not to forewarn the Egyptians, but to correct the unbelief of the people, which incessantly carried them away to false and wicked hopes. In order therefore to teach them that they ought to rely on God alone, the Prophet here foretells what awaits their useless helpers. The warning was highly seasonable, for the Ethiopians had begun to repel the Assyrians, and had forced them to retire, and no event could have occurred which would have been more gladly hailed by the Jews. Lest those successful beginnings should make them wanton, he foretells that this aid will be of short duration, because both the Ethiopians and the Egyptians will soon be most disgracefully vanquished.

2. Go and loose the sackcloth from thy loins. In order to confirm this prophecy by the use of a symbol, the Lord commanded Isaiah to walk naked. If Isaiah had done this of his own accord, he would have been justly ridiculed; but when he does it by the command of the Lord, we perceive nothing but what is fitted to excite admiration and to strike awe. In this nakedness, and in the signs of a similar kind, something weighty is implied. Besides, the Lord does nothing either by himself or by his servants without likewise explaining the reason; and therefore the Prophet does not merely walk naked, but points out the design which the Lord had in view in ordering him to do so. In other respects false prophets imitate the true servants of God, and put on varied and imposing shapes, to dazzle the eyes of the multitude, and gain credit to themselves; but those symbols are worthless, because God is not the author of them.

This ought to be carefully observed in opposition to the Papists, who bring forward empty ceremonies instead of true sacraments. This is the rule with which we ought to meet them. If they proceed from God, we ought to embrace them, but if not, we may boldly reject them; and, indeed, they cannot be adopted without offering an insult to God, because in such cases men usurp his authority. Besides, God does not bring forward signs without the word, for what would a sacrament be if we beheld nothing but the sign? It is the doctrine alone that makes the sacrament, and therefore let us know that it is mere hypocrisy where no doctrine is taught, and that Papists act wickedly when they lay aside doctrine, and give the name of sacrament to empty ceremonies; for the Lord has connected them in such a manner that no man can separate them without infringing that order which he has enjoined.

When the Lord commands him to loose the sackcloth; almost all the commentators infer from it that Isaiah at that time wore a garment of mourning, because he bewailed the distressed condition of Israel; for sackcloth was a mourning dress, as is evident from Joel (Joel 1:13.) Their interpretation is, that this was done in order that, in the dress of culprits, he might supplicate pardon from God, or that it was impossible for his countenance or his dress to be cheerful when his heart was sad, and he could not but be affected with the deepest grief when he beheld so great a calamity. Some think that it was his ordinary dress, because the Prophets, as Zechariah informs us, commonly wore a mantle. (Zechariah 13:4.) But that conjecture rests on exceedingly slight grounds, and has no great probability. It is more probable that he wore sackcloth as expressive of mourning. Judea was at that time sunk into such a state of indifference, that when men saw their brethren wretchedly distressed and wasted, still they were not affected by it, and did not think that the affliction of their brethren was a matter which at all concerned them. They still thought that they were beyond the reach of danger, and mocked at the Prophets when they threatened and foretold destruction. Hence Micah also complains that no man bewails the distresses of Israel. (Micah 1:11.)

A question arises, Was this actually done, or was it merely and simply a vision which he told to the people? The general opinion is, that the Prophet never went naked, but that this was exhibited to him in a vision, and only once. They allege as a reason, that on account of heat and cold, and other inconveniences of the weather, he could not have walked naked during the whole period of three years. What if we should say that the Prophet wore clothes at home, and also in public, unless when he wished to come forth to teach, and that on such occasions he was accustomed to present to the people a spectacle of nakedness? I pay little attention to the argument, that he was unable to endure heat and cold; for God, who commanded him to do this, could easily strengthen and protect him. But they assign another reason, that nakedness would have been unbecoming in a Prophet. I answer, this nakedness was not more unbecoming than circumcision, which irreligious men might consider to be the most absurd of all sights, because it made an exposure of the uncomely parts. Yet it must not be thought that the Prophet went entirely naked, or without covering those parts which would present a revolting aspect. It was enough that the people understood what the Lord was doing, and were affected by it as something extraordinary.

I am led to form this opinion by what is here said, “By the hand of Isaiah;” for although this mode of expression frequently occurs elsewhere, still we never find it where it does not imply something emphatic, to describe the effect produced. He places himself in the midst between God and his countrymen, so as to be the herald of a future calamity, not only in words, but likewise by a visible symbol. Nor is it superfluous that it is immediately added, He did so. I am therefore of opinion that Isaiah walked naked whenever he discharged the office of a prophet, and that he uncovered those parts which could be beheld without shame.

So far as relates to sackcloth, although it was customary for men in private stations of life to express their guilt in this manner in adversity, yet it is probable that it was with a view to his office that Isaiah made use of this symbol to confirm his doctrine, that he might the better arouse the people from their sluggishness. If at any time the Lord chastise ourselves or our brethren, he does not enjoin us to change our raiment, but we are cruel and (ἄστοργοι) without natural affection, if we are not moved by the afflictions of brethren and the ruin of the Church. If we have any feeling towards God, we ought to be in sadness and tears; and if it be our duty to mourn, we ought also to exhort others and stimulate them by our example to feel the calamities of the Church, and to be touched with some (συμπαθείᾳ) compassion.

3. Three years. Why for such a period? Because that was the time granted to the Egyptians and Ethiopians, during which the Lord gave them a truce for repentance, and at the same time wished to make trial of the obedience of his people, that without delay they might relinquish unlawful aid, and that, though the Egyptians and Ethiopians appeared to be secure, they might know that they were not far from ruin. The Lord intended also to expose the rebellion of wicked men; for undoubtedly many persons made an open display of their impiety when they despised the nakedness of the prophet, and the godly, on the other hand, moved by the sight of his nakedness, though the prosperity of the Ethiopians was delightfully attractive, still did not hesitate to fix their attention on the word. What they were bound to consider was not the nakedness itself, but the mark which the Lord had put upon it; in the same manner as, in the visible sacraments, we ought to behold those things which are invisible.

4. The captivity of Egypt and the removal of Ethiopia. {Bogus footnote} The words “captivity” and “removal” are taken collectively, to denote the multitude of captives and emigrants. Next, he shews that there will be no distinction of age, declaring that the old, as well as the young, shall be led into captivity.

5. And they shall be afraid. He now shews for whose benefit he had foretold these things about the Egyptians and Ethiopians. It was in order that the Jews might learn amidst their afflictions to hope in God, and might not have recourse to foreign aid, which the Lord had forbidden.

6. Lo, what is become of our expectation? He calls them expectation, or lurking, because the Jews turned towards them, whenever they were oppressed by any calamity, and placed their hope in them. We are accustomed to turn our eyes to that quarter from which we expect any assistance. Hence also, to “look” often signifies, in the Hebrew language, to “hope.” (Psalms 34:5; Job 6:19.) Now, they ought to have looked to God alone. Their wandering levity is therefore censured. And the same thing must happen to us, and deservedly, that when we have been invited by God, and refuse the sure refuge which he offers to us, and allow ourselves to be captivated by the delusions of Satan, we may lie down naked and destitute with shame and disgrace.

And the inhabitants of the island shall say. He gives the name island not only to Jerusalem, but to the whole of Judea; and it is generally thought that the name is given because its shores are washed by the Mediterranean sea. But I think that there is a different reason for this metaphor, for it is but a small portion of the sea that washes it; but as an island is separated from other lands, so the Lord separated Judea from other countries. It was kept apart from all the nations, which cherished a mortal hatred towards the Jews; for there was a “wall” between them, as Paul says, (Ephesians 2:14,) which Christ at length threw down. Here again Isaiah confirms his prophecy. If you are not now moved by my nakedness, you shall one day be taught by the event, that these words were not spoken to you in vain. Thus, at a late hour, obstinate and rebellious men are constrained by God to confess their guilt, so that they are struck with amazement, and argue within themselves how they could be so greatly blinded by their own stubbornness.

CHAPTER 21

Isaiah Chapter 21:1-17

1. The burden of the desert of the sea. As whirlwinds in the south pass through; so it cometh from the desert, from a terrible land.

1. Onus deserti maris, Sicut tempestates in australi regione, transituræ a deserto, veniet a terra horribili.

2. A grievous vision is declared unto me: The treacherous dealer dealeth treacherously, and the spoiler spoileth. Go up, O Elam; besiege, O Media: all the sighing thereof have I made to cease.

2. Visio dura indicata est mihi: transgressor transgressori, et vastator vastatori. Ascende, Persa; obside, Mede; omnem gemitum ejus cessare feci.

3. Therefore are my loins filled with pain: pangs have taken hold upon me, as the pangs of a woman that travaileth: I was bowed down at the hearing of it; I was dismayed at the seeing of it

3. Propterea impleti sunt lumbi mei dolore; angustiæ corripuerunt me,sicut angustiæ parturientis; incurvatus sum audiendo, et videndo obstupui.

4. My heart panted, fearfulness affrighted me: the night of my pleasure hath he turned into fear unto me.

4. Concussum est cor meum; horror perterruit me; noctem deliciarum mearum posuit mihi in horrorem.

5. Prepare the table, watch in the watch-tower, eat, drink: arise, ye princes, and anoint the shield.

5. Adorna mensam, speculare in specula, comede, bibe; surgite, Principes, et ungite clypeum.

6. For thus hath the Lord said unto me, Go, set a watchman, let him declare what he seeth.

6. Quoniam sic dixit ad me Dominus: Vade, constitue vigilem, qui annuntiet quod viderit.

7. And he saw a chariot with a couple of horsemen, a chariot of asses, and a chariot of camels; and he hearkened diligently with much heed.

7. Et vidit currum paris equitum, currum asini, et currum cameli; deinde attentius speculatus est, multum, inquam, speculatus est.

8. And he cried, A lion: My lord, I stand continually upon the watch-tower in the day-time, and I am set in my ward whole nights;

8. Tum clamavit, Leo. In specula mea, Domine mi, jugiter sto interdiu, et totis noctibus in custodia mea locatus sum.

9. And, behold, here cometh a chariot of men, with a couple of horsemen. And he answered and said, Babylon is fallen, is fallen; and all the graven images of her gods he hath broken unto the ground.

9. Et ecce, hic venit currus hominis, par equitum. Et loquutus est, ac dixit, Cecidit, cecidit Babel, et omnia sculptilia deorum ejus contrivit ad terram.

10. O my thrashing, and the corn of my floor: that which I have heard of the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, have I declared unto you.

10. Tritura mea, et filius areæ meæ. Quæ audivi a Iehova exercituum Deo Israel, nuntiavi vobis.

11. The burden of Dumah. He calleth to me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? Watchman, what of the night?

11. Onus Duma. Clamat ad me ex Seir: Custos, quid de nocte? Custos, quid de nocte?

12. The watchman said, The morning cometh, and also the night: if ye will enquire, enquire ye; return, come.

12. Dixit custos: Venit mane, postea nox. Si interrogavaris, interrogate. Revertimini, venite.

13. The burden upon Arabia. In the forest in Arabia shall ye lodge, O ye travelling companies of Dedanim.

13. Onus in Arabia. In nemore in Arabia pernoctabitis, in viis Dedanim.

14. The inhabitants of the land of Tema brought water to him that was thirsty, they prevented with their bread him that fled.

14. In occursum ferte aquas sitienti, icolæ terræ Tema, pane suo succurrite profugo.

15. For they fled from the swords, from the drawn sword, and from the bent bow, and from the grievousness of war.

15. Quia a facie gladiorum fugiunt, a facie gladii extenti, a facie arcus intenti, a facie gravitatis belli.

16. Fore thus hath the Lord said unto me, Within a year, according to the years of an hireling, and all the glory of Kedar shall fail:

16. Nam sic dixit mihi Dominus: Adhuc annus, secundum annos mercenarii, tum deficiet omnis gloria Cedar;

17. And the residue of the number of archers, the mighty men of the children of Kedar, shall be diminished: for the Lord God of Israel hath spoken it

17. Et residuum arcus, quod numerabitur fortium filiorum Cedar, imminuetur; quoniam Iehova Deus Israel loquutus est.

CHAPTER 20

Is 20:1-6. Continuation of the Subject of the Nineteenth Chapter, BUT AT A Later Date. Captivity of Egypt and Ethiopia.

In the reign of Sargon (722-715 B.C.), the successor of Shalmaneser, an Assyrian invasion of Egypt took place. Its success is here foretold, and hence a party among the Jews is warned of the folly of their "expectation" of aid from Egypt or Ethiopia. At a later period (Is 18:1-7), when Tirhakah of Ethiopia was their ally, the Ethiopians are treated as friends, to whom God announces the overthrow of the common Assyrian foe, Sennacherib. Egypt and Ethiopia in this chapter (Is 20:3, 4) are represented as allied together, the result no doubt of fear of the common foe; previously they had been at strife, and the Ethiopian king had, just before Sethos usurpation, withdrawn from occupation of part of Lower Egypt. Hence, "Egypt" is mentioned alone in Is 19:1-25, which refers to a somewhat earlier stage of the same event: a delicate mark of truth. Sargon seems to have been the king who finished the capture of Samaria which Shalmaneser began; the alliance of Hoshea with So or Sabacho II of Ethiopia, and his refusal to pay the usual tribute, provoked Shalmaneser to the invasion. On clay cylindrical seals found in Sennacherib's palace at Koyunjik, the name of Sabacho is deciphered; the two seals are thought, from the inscriptions, to have been attached to the treaty of peace between Egypt and Assyria, which resulted from the invasion of Egypt by Sargon, described in this chapter; 2Ki 18:10 curiously confirms the view derived from Assyrian inscriptions, that though Shalmaneser began, Sargon finished the conquest of Samaria; "they took it" (compare 2Ki 17:4-6). In Sargon's palace at Khorsabad, inscriptions state that 27,280 Israelites were led captive by the founder of the palace. While Shalmaneser was engaged in the siege of Samaria, Sargon probably usurped the supreme power and destroyed him; the siege began in 723 B.C., and ended in 721 B.C., the first year of Sargon's reign. Hence arises the paucity of inscriptions of the two predecessors of Sargon, Tiglath-pileser and Shalmaneser; the usurper destroyed them, just as Tiglath-pileser destroyed those of Pul (Sardanapalus), the last of the old line of Ninus; the names of his father and grandfather, which have been deciphered in the palace of his son Sennacherib, do not appear in the list of Assyrian kings, which confirms the view that he was a satrap who usurped the throne. He was so able a general that Hezekiah made no attempt to shake off the tribute until the reign of Sennacherib; hence Judah was not invaded now as the lands of the Philistines and Egypt were. After conquering Israel he sent his general, Tartan, to attack the Philistine cities, "Ashdod," &c., preliminary to his invasion of Egypt and Ethiopia; for the line of march to Egypt lay along the southwest coast of Palestine. The inscriptions confirm the prophecy; they tell us he received tribute from a Pharaoh of "Egypt"; besides destroying in part the Ethiopian "No-ammon," or Thebes (Na 3:8); also that he warred with the kings of "Ashdod," Gaza, &c., in harmony with Isaiah here; a memorial tablet of him is found in Cyprus also, showing that he extended his arms to that island. His reign was six or seven years in duration, 722-715 B.C. [G. V. Smith].

1. Tartan--probably the same general as was sent by Sennacherib against Hezekiah (2Ki 18:17). Gesenius takes "Tartan" as a title.

Ashdod--called by the Greeks Azotus (Ac 8:40); on the Mediterranean, one of the "five" cities of the Philistines. The taking of it was a necessary preliminary to the invasion of Egypt, to which it was the key in that quarter, the Philistines being allies of Egypt. So strongly did the Assyrians fortify it that it stood a twenty-nine years' siege, when it was retaken by the Egyptian Psammetichus.

sent--Sargon himself remained behind engaged with the Phoenician cities, or else led the main force more directly into Egypt out of Judah [G. V. Smith].

2. by--literally, "by the hand of" (compare Eze 3:14).

sackcloth--the loose outer garment of coarse dark hair-cloth worn by mourners (2Sa 3:31) and by prophets, fastened at the waist by a girdle (Mt 3:4; 2Ki 1:8; Zec 13:4).

naked--rather, "uncovered"; he merely put off the outer sackcloth, retaining still the tunic or inner vest (1Sa 19:24; Am 2:16; Joh 21:7); an emblem to show that Egypt should be stripped of its possessions; the very dress of Isaiah was a silent exhortation to repentance.

3. three years--Isaiah's symbolical action did not continue all this time, but at intervals, to keep it before the people's mind during that period [Rosenmuller]. Rather, join "three years" with "sign," a three years' sign, that is, a sign that a three years' calamity would come on Egypt and Ethiopia [Barnes], (Is 8:18). This is the only instance of a strictly symbolical act performed by Isaiah. With later prophets, as Jeremiah and Ezekiel, such acts were common. In some cases they were performed, not literally, but only in prophetic vision.

wonder--rather, "omen"; conveying a threat as to the future [G. V. Smith].

upon--in reference to, against.

4. buttocks uncovered--Belzoni says that captives are found represented thus on Egyptian monuments (Is 47:2, 3; Na 3:5, 8, 9), where as here, Egypt and Ethiopia are mentioned as in alliance.

5. they--the Philistine allies of Egypt who trusted in it for help against Assyria. A warning to the party among the Jews, who, though Judah was then the subordinate ally of Assyria, were looking to Egypt as a preferable ally (Is 30:7). Ethiopia was their "expectation"; for Palestine had not yet obtained, but hoped for alliance with it. Egypt was their "glory," that is, boast (Is 13:19); for the alliance with it was completed.

6. isle--that is, coast on the Mediterranean--Philistia, perhaps Phoenicia (compare Is 23:2; 11:11; 13:22; Psa 72:10).

we--emphatical; if Egypt, in which we trusted, was overcome, how shall we, a small weak state, escape?

Walking naked and barefoot - It is not probable that the prophet walked uncovered and barefoot for three years; his appearing in that manner was a sign that within three years the Egyptians and Cushites should be in the same condition, being conquered and made captives by the king of Assyria. The time was denoted as well as the event; but his appearing in that manner for three whole years could give no premonition of the time at all. It is probable, therefore, that the prophet was ordered to walk so for three days to denote the accomplishment of the event in three years; a day for a year, according to the prophetical rule, Num 14:34; Eze 4:6. The words שלש ימים shalosh yamim, three days, may possibly have been lost out of the text, at the end of the second verse, after יחף yacheph, barefoot; or after the same word in the third verse, where, in the Alexandrine and Vatican copies of the Septuagint, and in MSS. Pachom. and 1. D. 2 the words τρια ετη, three years, are twice expressed. Perhaps, instead of שלש ימים shalosh yamim, three days, the Greek translator might read שלש שנים shalosh shanim, three years, by his own mistake, or by that of his copy, after יחף yacheph in the third verse, for which stands the first τρια ετη, three years, in the Alexandrine and Vatican Septuagint, and in the two MSS. above mentioned. It is most likely that Isaiah's walking naked and barefoot was done in a vision; as was probably that of the Prophet Hosea taking a wife of whoredoms. None of these things can well be taken literally.

From thy foot - רגליך ragleycha, thy feet, is the reading of thirty-four of Kennicott's and De Rossi's MSS., four ancient editions, with the Septuagint, Syriac, Vulgate, and Arabic.

Sargon - Sennacherib, who, before he came to Jerusalem, came up against and took all the walled cities of Judah, of which Ashdod might be reckoned one, as being in the tribe of Judah.

Sackcloth - Which he wore in token of his grief for the calamities that were already come upon Israel, and were coming upon Judah. Naked - Not wholly naked, but without his upper garment, as slaves and prisoners used to do, whose posture he was to represent. Bare - foot - After the manner of mourners and captives.

Three years - Not constantly, but when he went abroad among the people, to whom this was appointed for a sign. A sign - When this judgment should come, namely, three years after this prophecy.

Uncovered - Having their garments cut off by the middle.

They - All that shall trust to them. But under this general expression the Israelites, seem to be principally intended.

Of the country - Of this land, in which the prophet was, and to whose inhabitants, these words were uttered. Such - So vain is our hope placed upon such a people as are unable to deliver themselves.

IN the year that Tartan came unto Ashdod , (when Sargon the king of Assyria sent him) and fought against Ashdod and took it:

A great Commander in Sennacherib's Army, 2 Kings 18. 17.

An eminent and strong City of the Philistins, Ios. 13. 3. 1 Sam. 5. 1. in the utmost part of the Land of Canaan, towards Egypt.

What King of Assyria this was, is much disputed. It is well known, and confessed, that one and the same Person hath frequently several Names, both in Scripture, as hath been observed again and again, and in other Authors. And therefore this may be either, 1. Salmaneser, who, when he took Samaria, might also by Tartan take this Place; or, 2▪ Sennacherib, who, before he came to Ierusalem, came up against and took all the fenced cities of Iudah, 2 Kings 18. 13. of which Ashdod might be reckoned one, as being in the Tribe of Iudah, Ios. 13. 3. & 15. 47. and taken by Hezekiah from the Philistins, as it seems very probable from that Passage, 2 Kings 18. 8. He smote the Philistins even unto Gaza, and the borders thereof, from the tower of the watchmen to the fenced city: Or, 3. Esarhadden, Sennacherib's Son, who, by cutting off the first Letter, is called Sarchedon, Tobit 1. 21. and thence possibly, by abbreviation, Sargon: Who might do this thing in Hezekiah's time, some years after his Father's Death, and his coming to the Empire, although it be not recorded in Scripture: For no man doubts that there were many great Actions in those Times, which are wholly omitted in the Sacred Writings.

Marginal references: 2 Kin. 18. 17.

2 At the same time spake the LORD by Isaiah the son of Amoz, saying, Go, and loose the saccloth from off thy loins , and put off thy shoe from thy foot: And he did so, walking naked and bare-foot .

Ungird it and put it off; the Antecedent put for the Consequent, which is very usual, as hath been often noted. God would sometimes have his Prophets to add to their Word a visible Sign, to awaken Peoples Minds to a more serious Consideration of the Matters proposed to them.

Either, 1. his course and hairy Garment, which the Prophets used to wear, 2 Kings 1. 8. Zech. 13. 4. as many understand it. But that is expressed by another Word in the places quoted, and never, to my knowledge, by this Word: Or 2. his mournful Habit, which was commonly made of Saccloth, and which he wore in token of his hearty grief for the great Calamities which were already come upon Israel, and were either come or coming upon Iudah.

Upon which the upper Garments were commonly girt, 1 Kings 20. 32. 2 Kings 9. 1.

Not wholly naked, which had been indecent and scandalous, and withal very dangerous, at least to do so for three years, as he did, v. 3. but without his upper Garment, as slaves and prisoners used to do, whose posture he was to represent, v. 4. And so the word naked is used, 1 Sam. 19. 24. 2 Sam. 6. 20. Ioh. 21. 7. Thus also men are said to be naked when they are ill-clothed, as Iob 22. 6. Mat 25. 36. 1 Cor. 4. 11. Iames 2. 15.

After the manner of Mourners, 2 Sam. 15. 30. and Captives, Ier. 2. 25.

Marginal references: Heb. by the hand of Isaiah.; Mich. 1. 8, 11.

3 And the LORD said, Like as my servant Isaiah hath walked naked and bare-foot three years for a sign and wonder upon Egypt, and upon Ethiopia:

Not constantly, but when he went abroad among the People, to whom this was appointed for a Sign. Some think it was only three days, a day being usually put for a year in Prophetical Scriptures, as Numb. 14. 33, 34. Ezek. 4. 4, 5, 6. But although a day be put for a year, yet a year is never put for a day.

Either, 1. when this Judgment should come; to wit, three years after this Prophecy. Or, 2. how long it should continue; for three years: For some have observed that the Chaldeans spent so much time in Conquering Egypt and Ethiopia.

4 So shall the king of Assyria lead away the Egyptians prisoners, and the Ethiopians captives, young and old, naked and bare-foot, even with their buttocks uncoverd to the shame of Egypt.

Like Beasts, of which this Word is commonly used.

Having their Garments cut off by the middle, to the discovery of their Buttocks and their Secret parts. Compare 2 Sam. 10. 4. Isa. 47. 2.

Marginal references: Heb. the captivity of Egypt.; Heb. nakedness.

5 And they shall be afraid and ashamed of Ethiopia their expectation, and of Egypt their glory.

All they that shall trust to them, and glory in them, as appears from the following Words, the Pronoun they being put Indifinitely here, as it is Isa. 2. 19. and elsewhere. But under this general expression the Israelites not onely are comprehended, but seem to be principally intended, because to them this Prophecy was delivered, and they were eminently guilty of this Sin; of which see Isa. 30. 2. & 31. 1.

6 And the inhabitants of this isle shall say in that day, Behold, such is our expectation whither we flee for help , to be delivered from the king of Assyria: and how shall we escape ?

Of this Land, in which the Prophet was, and to whose Inhabitants these Words were uttered. For the Title of Isles or Islands in Scripture is frequently given not onely to Lands encompased with the Sea, but also to such Countries, as lay upon the Sea-Coasts, as Psal. 72. 10. Ezek. 26. 15, 18. as Palestina or Canaan did, yea to such Countries as are remote or separated from that place in or of which the Words are spoken, as Esth. 10. 1. Isa. 24. 15. & 42. 4, 10, &c. as Canaan was from Egypt, or at least from Ethiopia. Add to this, that Canaan had some resemblance with an Isle, either because it was almost incompassed with the Midland Sea on one side, and with the Dead Sea, and the Sea of Galilee or Tiberias and Iordan on the other side; or because, as Isles are separated from other Lands by the Sea, so this Land and People were separated from all the rest of the World by God's special Providence, and Presence, and Worship.

So vain is our hope placed upon such a People as are unable to deliver themselves, and much more to deliver us.

To whom we now and usualy trust, for this was the common dissease of the People of Israel, although Hezekiah was in a good measure free from it, as we read 2 Kings 18. 5.

Either by their help, who cannot defend our selves; or, by our own strength; seeing they who were much more potent than we are, could not escape.

Marginal references: Or, countrey.

Isa 20:1-2

This section, commencing in the form of historic prose, introduces itself thus: “In the year that Tartan came to Ashdod, Sargon the king of Asshur having sent him (and he made war 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 Isa 37:24; Jer 37:2, 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 Isa 20:3, and indirectly to Isa 20:2. Tartan (probably the same man) is met with in 2Ki 18:17 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 Shalmaneser (Shalman, Hos 10:14), 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 north-eastern corner of ancient Nineveh, with the Sargon of the Bible. We are now acquainted with a considerable number of brick, harem, votive-table, and other inscriptions which bear the name of this king, and contain all kinds of testimony concerning himself.See Oppert, Expédition, i. 328-350, and the picture of Sargon in his war-chariot in Rawlinson’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.

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 2Ki 18:10 the conquest is 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.See Oppert, Les Inscriptions Assyriennes des Sargonides et les Fastes de Ninive (Versailles, 1862), and Rawlinson (vol. ii. 406ff.), 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. Inschriften, 1856, p. 48ff.). 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 besieger of Samaria, has yet been found.

Whether his name as it appears on the inscriptions is Sar-kin or not, and whether it signifies the king de facto as distinguished from the king de jure, we will not attempt to determine now.Hitzig ventures a derivation of the name from the Zend; and Grotefend compares it with the Chaldee Sârēk, Dan 6:3 (in his Abhandlung über Anlage und Zerstörung der Gebäude von Nimrud, 1851).

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 Shalmanassar (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 required is not to be gathered from Isa 20:1. But if he 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: “Go and loosen the smock-frock from off thy loins, and take off thy shoes from thy feet. And he did so, went stripped and barefooted.” We see from this that Isaiah was clothed in the same manner as Elijah, who wore a fur coat (2Ki 1:8, cf., Zec 13:4; Heb 11:37), and John the Baptist, who had a garment of camel hair and a leather girdle round it (Mat 3:4); for sak is a coarse linen or hairy overcoat of a dark colour (Rev 6:12, cf., Isa 50:3), such as was worn by mourners, either next to the skin (‛al-habbâsâr, 1Ki 21:27; 2Ki 6:30; Job 16:15) or over the tunic, in either case being fastened by a girdle on account of its want of shape, for which reason the verb châgar is the word commonly used to signify the putting on of such a garment, instead of lâbash. The use of the word ârōm does not prove that the former was the case in this instance (see, on the contrary, 2Sa 6:20, compared with 2Sa 6:14 and Joh 21:7). 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 (cetoneth); 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 of a beggar or prisoner of war. The word cēn (so) is followed by the inf. abs., which develops the meaning, as in Isa 5:5; Isa 58:6-7.

Isa 20:3-4

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. “And Jehovah said, As my servant Yesha'yahu goeth naked and barefooted, a sign and type for three years long over Egypt and 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” (ca'asher hâlac) 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 hâlac stands here, as it frequently does, to express what has already commenced, and is still continuing and customary (compare, for example, Job 1:4 and Psa 1:1). 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 Isa 11:12. They were at that time one kingdom, so that the shame of Egypt was the shame of Ethiopia also. ‛Ervâh is a shameful nakedness, and ‛ervath Mitzrayim is in apposition to all that precedes it in Isa 20:4. Shēth is the seat or hinder part, as in 2Sa 10:4, from shâthâh, to set or seat; it is a substantive form, like בּן, עץ, רע, שׁם, with the third radical letter dropt. Chashūphay has the same ay as the words in Isa 19:9; Jdg 5:15; Jer 22:14, which can hardly be regarded as constructive forms, as Ewald, Knobel, and Gesenius suppose (although ־י of the construct has arisen from ־י), but rather as a singular form with a collective signification. The emendations suggested, viz., chasūphē by Olshausen, and chasūphı̄ with a connecting i by Meier, are quite unnecessary.

Isa 20:5-6

But if Egypt and Ethiopia are thus shamefully humbled, what kind of impression will this make upon those who rely upon the great power that is supposed to be both unapproachable and invincible? “And they cry together, and behold themselves deceived by Ethiopia, to which they looked, and by Egypt, in which they gloried. And the inhabitant of this coast-land saith in that day, Behold, thus it happens to those to whom we looked, whither we fled for help to deliver us from the king of Asshur: and how should we, we escape?” אי, which signifies both an island and a coast-land, is used as the name of Philistia and Zep 2:5, and as the name of Phoenicia in Isa 23:2, Isa 23:6; and for this reason Knobel and others understand it here as denoting the former with the inclusion of the latter. But as the Assyrians had already attacked both Phoenicians and Philistines at the time when they marched against Egypt, there can be no doubt that Isaiah had chiefly the Judaeans in his mind. This was the interpretation given by Jerome (“Judah trusted in the Egyptians, and Egypt will be destroyed”), and it has been adopted by Ewald, Drechsler, Luzzatto, and Meier. The expressions are the same as those in which a little further on we find Isaiah reproving the Egyptian tendencies of Judah’s policy. At the same time, by “the inhabitant of this coast-land” we are not to understand Judah exclusively, but the inhabitants of Palestine generally, with whom Judah was mixed up to its shame, because it had denied its character as the nation of Jehovah in a manner so thoroughly opposed to its theocratic standing.

Unfortunately, we know very little concerning the Assyrian campaigns in Egypt. But we may infer from Nah 3:8-10, according to which the Egyptian Thebes had fallen (for it is held up before Nineveh as the mirror of its own fate), that after the conquest of Ashdod Egypt was also overcome by Sargon’s army. In the grand inscription found in the halls of the palace at Khorsabad, Sargon boasts of a successful battle which he had fought with Pharaoh Sebech at Raphia, and in consequence of which the latter became tributary to him. Still further on he relates that he had dethroned the rebellious king of Ashdod, and appointed another in his place, but that the people removed him, and chose another king; after which he marched with his army against Ashdod, and when the king fled from him into Egypt, he besieged Ashdod, and took it. Then follows a difficult and mutilated passage, in which Rawlinson agrees with Oppert in finding an account of the complete subjection of Sebech (Sabako?).Five Great Monarchies, vol. ii. pp. 416-7; compare Oppert, Sargonides, pp. 22, 26-7. With regard to one passage of the annals, which contains an account of a successful battle fought at Ra-bek (Heliopolis), see Journal Asiat. xii. 462ff.; Brandis, p. 51.

Nothing can be built upon this, however; and it must also remain uncertain whether, even if the rest is correctly interpreted, Isa 20:1 relates to that conquest of Ashdod which was followed by the dethroning of the rebellious king and the appointment of another, or to the final conquest by which it became a colonial city of Assyria.Among the pictures from Khorsabad which have been published by Botta, there is a burning fortress that has been taken by storm. Isidor Löwenstern (in his Essai, Paris 1845) pronounced it to be Ashdod; but Rödiger regarded the evidence as inconclusive. Nevertheless, Löwenstern was able to claim priority over Rawlinson in several points of deciphering (Galignani’s Messenger, Rev. 28, 1850). He read in the inscription the king’s name, Sarak.

This conquest Sargon ascribes to himself in person, so that apparently we must think of that conquest which was carried out by Tartan; and in that case the words, “he fought against it,” etc., need not be taken as anticipatory. It is quite sufficient, that the monuments seem to intimate that the conquest of Samaria and Ashdod was followed by the subjugation of the Egypto-Ethiopian kingdom. But inasmuch as Judah, trusting in the reed of Egypt, fell away from Assyria under Hezekiah, and Sennacherib had to make war upon Egypt again, to all appearance the Assyrians never had much cause to congratulate themselves upon their possession of Egypt, and that for reasons which are not difficult to discover. At the time appointed by the prophecy, Egypt came under the Assyrian yoke, from which it was first delivered by Psammetichus; but, as the constant wars between Assyria and Egypt clearly show, it never patiently submitted to that yoke for any length of time. The confidence which Judah placed in Egypt turned out most disastrously for Judah itself, just as Isaiah predicted here. But the catastrophe that occurred in front of Jerusalem did not put an end to Assyria, nor did the campaigns of Sargon and Sennacherib bring Egypt to an end. And, on the other hand, the triumphs of Jehovah and of the prophecy concerning Assyria were not the means of Egypt’s conversion. In all these respects the fulfilment showed that there was an element of human hope in the prophecy, which made the distant appear to be close at hand. And this element it eliminated. For the fulfilment of a prophecy is divine, but the prophecy itself is both divine and human. The Oracle Concerning the Desert of the Sea (Babylon) - Isa 21:1-10

Ewald pronounces this and other headings to be the glosses of ancient readers (proph. i. 56, 57). Even Vitringa at first attributed it to the collectors, but he afterwards saw that this was inadmissible. In fact, it is hardly possible to understand how the expression “desert of the sea” (midbar-yâm) could have been taken from the prophecy itself; for yâm cannot signify the south (as though synonymous with negeb), but is invariably applied to the west, whilst there is nothing about a sea in the prophecy. The heading, therefore, is a peculiar one; and this Knobel admits, though he nevertheless adheres to the opinion that it sprang from a later hand. But why? According to modern critics, the hand by which the whole massa was written was certainly quite late enough. From Koppe to Knobel they are almost unanimous in asserting that it emanated from a prophet who lived at the end of the Babylonian captivity. And Meier asserts with dictatorial brevity, that no further proof is needed that Isaiah was not the author. But assuming, what indeed seems impossible to modern critics - namely, that a prophet’s insight into futurity might stretch over hundreds of years - the massa contains within itself and round about itself the strongest proofs of its genuineness. Within itself: for both the thoughts themselves, and the manner in which they are expressed, are so thoroughly Isaiah’s, even in the most minute points, that it is impossible to conceive of any prophecy in a form more truly his own. And round about itself: inasmuch as the four massa’s (Isa 21:1-10, Isa 21:11-12, Isa 21:13-17; 22), are so intertwined the one with the other as to form a tetralogy, not only through their emblematical titles (compare Isa 30:6) and their visionary bearing, but also in many ways through the contexts themselves. Thus the designation of the prophet as a “watchman” is common to the first and second massa's; and in the fourth, Jerusalem is called the valley of vision, because the watch-tower was there, from which the prophet surveyed the future fate of Babylon, Edom, and Arabia. And just as in the first, Elam and Madai march against Babylon; so in the fourth (Isa 22:6) Kir and Elam march against Jerusalem. The form of expression is also strikingly similar in both instances (compare Isa 22:6-7, with Isa 21:7). Is it then possible that the first portion of the tetralogy should be spurious, and the other three genuine? We come to the same conclusion in this instance as we did at Isa 13:1.; and that, most truly, neither from a needless apologetical interest, nor from forced traditional prejudice. Just as the massâ Bâbel rests upon a prophecy against Asshur, which forms, as it were, a pedestal to it, and cannot be supposed to have been placed there by any one but Isaiah himself; so that massa midbar-yâm rests, as it were, upon the pillars of its genuineness, and announces itself velut de tripode as Isaiah's. This also applies to the heading. We have already noticed, in connection with Isa 15:1, how closely the headings fit in to the prophecies themselves. Isaiah is fond of symbolical names (Isa 29:1; Isa 30:7). And midbar-yâm (desert of the sea) is a name of this kind applied to Babylon and the neighbourhood. The continent on which Babylon stood was a midbâr, a great plain running to the south into Arabia deserta; and so intersected by the Euphrates as well as by marshes and lakes, that it floated, as it were, in the sea. The low-lying land on the Lower Euphrates had been wrested, as it were, from the sea; for before Semiramis constructed the dams, the Euphrates used to overflow the whole just like a sea (πελαγίζειν, Herod. i. 184). Abydenus even says, that at first the whole of it was covered with water, and was called thalassa (Euseb. praep. ix. 41). We may learn from Isa 14:23, why it was that the prophet made use of this symbolical name. The origin and natural features of Babylon are made into ominous prognostics of its ultimate fate. The true interpretation is found in Jeremiah (Jer 51:13; Jer 50:38), who was acquainted with this oracle.

Threatenings against Egypt. (b. c. 713.)

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

God here, as King of nations, brings a sore calamity upon Egypt and Ethiopia, but, as King of saints, brings good to his people out of it. Observe,

I. The date of this prophecy. It was in the year that Ashdod, a strong city of the Philistines (but which some think was lately recovered from them by Hezekiah, when he smote the Philistines even unto Gaza, 2 Kings xviii. 8), was besieged and taken by an army of the Assyrians. It is uncertain what year of Hezekiah that was, but the event was so remarkable that those who lived then could by that token fix the time to a year. He that was now king of Assyria is called Sargon, which some take to be the same with Sennacherib; others think he was his immediate predecessor, and succeeded Shalmaneser. Tartan, who was general, or commander-in-chief, in this expedition, was one of Sennacherib's officers, sent by him to bid defiance to Hezekiah, in concurrence with Rabshakeh, 2 Kings xviii. 17.

II. The making of Isaiah a sign, by his unusual dress when he walked abroad. He had been a sign to his own people of the melancholy times that had come and were coming upon them, by the sackcloth which for some time he had worn, of which he had a gown made, which he girt about him. Some think he put himself into that habit of a mourner upon occasion of the captivity of the ten tribes. Others think sackcloth was what he commonly wore as a prophet, to show himself mortified to the world, and that he might learn to endure hardness; soft clothing better becomes those that attend in king's palaces (Matt. xi. 8) than those that go on God's errands. Elijah wore hair-cloth (2 Kings i. 8), and John Baptist (Matt. iii. 4) and those that pretended to be prophets supported their pretension by wearing rough garments (Zech. xiii. 4); but Isaiah has orders given him to loose his sackcloth from his loins, not to exchange it for better clothing, but for none at all—no upper garment, no mantle, cloak, or coat, but only that which was next to him, we may suppose his shirt, waistcoat, and drawers; and he must put off his shoes, and go barefoot; so that compared with the dress of others, and what he himself usually wore, he might be said to go naked. This was a great hardship upon the prophet; it was a blemish to his reputation, and would expose him to contempt and ridicule; the boys in the streets would hoot at him, and those who sought occasion against him would say, The prophet is indeed a fool, and the spiritual man is mad, Hosea ix. 7. It might likewise be a prejudice to his health; he was in danger of catching a cold, which might throw him into a fever, and cost him his life; but God bade him do it, that he might give a proof of his obedience to God in a most difficult command, and so shame the disobedience of his people to the most easy and reasonable precepts. When we are in the way of our duty we may trust God both with our credit and with our safety. The hearts of that people were strangely stupid, and would not be affected with what they only heard, but must be taught by signs, and therefore Isaiah must do this for their edification. If the dress was scandalous, yet the design was glorious, and what a prophet of the Lord needed not to be ashamed of.

III. The exposition of this sign, v. 3, 4. It was intended to signify that the Egyptians and the Ethiopians should be led away captive by the king of Assyria, thus stripped, or in rags, and very shabby clothing, as Isaiah was. God calls him his servant Isaiah, because in this matter particularly he had approved himself God's willing, faithful, obedient servant; and for this very thing, which perhaps others laughed at him for, God gloried in him. To obey is better than sacrifice; it pleases God and praises him more, and shall be more praised by him. Isaiah is said to have walked naked and barefoot three years, whenever in that time he appeared as a prophet. But some refer the three years, not to the sign, but to the thing signified: He has walked naked and barefoot; there is a stop in the original; provided he did so once that was enough to give occasion to all about him to enquire what was the meaning of his doing so; or, as some think, he did it three days, a day for a year; and this for a three years' sign and wonder, for a sign of that which should be done three years afterwards or which should be three years in the doing. Three campaigns successively shall the Assyrian army make, in spoiling the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and carrying them away captive in this barbarous manner, not only the soldiers taken in the field of battle, but the inhabitants, young and old; and it being a very piteous sight, and such as must needs move compassion in those that had the least degree of tenderness left them to see those who had gone all their days well dressed now stripped, and scarcely having rags to cover their nakedness, that circumstance of their captivity is particularly taken notice of, and foretold, the more to affect those to whom this prophecy was delivered. It is particularly said to be to the shame of Egypt (v. 4), because the Egyptians were a proud people, and therefore when they did fall into disgrace it was the more shameful to them; and the higher they had lifted up themselves the lower was their fall, both in their own eyes and in the eyes of others.

IV. The use and application of this, v. 5, 6. 1. All that had any dependence upon, or correspondence with, Egypt and Ethiopia, should now be ashamed of them, and afraid of having any thing to do with them. Those countries that were in danger of being overrun by the Assyrians expected that Tirhakah, king of Ethiopia, with his numerous forces, would put a stop to the progress of their victorious arms, and be a barrier to his neighbours; and with yet more assurance they gloried that Egypt, a kingdom so famous for policy and prowess, would do their business, would oblige them to raise the siege of Ashdod and retire with precipitation. But, instead of this, by attempting to oppose the king of Assyria they did but expose themselves and make their country a prey to him. Hereupon all about them were ashamed that ever they promised themselves any advantage from two such weak and cowardly nations, and were more afraid now than ever they were of the growing greatness of the king of Assyria, before whom Egypt and Ethiopia proved but as briers and thorns put to stop a consuming fire, which do but make it burn the more strongly. Note, Those who make any creature their expectation and glory, and so put it in the place of God, will sooner or later be ashamed of it, and their disappointment in it will but increase their fear. See Ezek. xxix. 6, 7. 2. The Jews in particular should be convinced of their folly in resting upon such broken reeds, and should despair of any relief from them (v. 6): The inhabitants of this isle (the land of Judah, situated upon the sea, though not surrounded by it), of this country (so the margin); every one shall now have his eyes opened, and shall say, "Behold, such is our expectation, so vain, so foolish, and this is that which it will come to. We have fled for help to the Egyptians and Ethiopians, and have hoped by them to be delivered from the king of Assyria; but, now that they are broken thus, how shall we escape, that are not able to bring such armies into the field as they did?" Note, (1.) Those that confide in creatures will be disappointed, and will be made ashamed of their confidence; for vain is the help of man, and in vain is salvation hoped for from the hills or the height and multitude of the mountains. (2.) Disappointment in creature confidences, instead of driving us to despair, as here (how shall we escape?), should drive us to God; for, if we flee to him for help, our expectation shall not be frustrated.

CHAP. XX.

Ver. 1. IN the year that Tartan] A certain Commander under Sennacherib, 2 King. 18.17. who came againſt Aſhdod (among other Cities of Judah) about the twelfth year of King Hezekiah.

Came to Aſhdod] Called alſo Azotus, Act. 8.40. and much praiſed by Herodotus in Euterpe.

When Sargon] That is, Sennacherib moſt likely, who had ſeven Names, ſaith Hierom: eighth, ſay ſome Rabbins. Commodus the Roman Emperour took unto himſelf as many names as there are months in the year;1 [illegible: 1 letter]on. which alſo he changed ever and anon, but conſtantly kept that of Exuperans, becauſe he would have been thought to excel all men. The like might be true of Sargon.

Herod. l. 2. And fought againſt Aſhdod and took it] Pſammetichus King of Egypt had before taken it, after a very long ſiege; now it is taken again from the Aegyptian by the Aſſyrian; to teach them and others, not to truſt to Forts and fenced Cities.

Ver. 2. At the ſame time ſpake the Lord] Againſt Egypt and Ethiopia, whom he had comforted, [non-Latin text not transcribed] i. e. Per Iſaiam tanquam organum & diſ[illegible: 1 letter]enſatorem ſuo[illegible: 1 letter]um myſter. Oecolamp. Veſtimentum [illegible: 1 letter]i loſum. ver. 18. & 19 and yet now again threateneth; ſhewing by an ocular demonſtration what miſeries ſhould befall them. This was done in Jury; but the report thereof might eaſily come to theſe confederate Countreys: and the Jews howſoever were given hereby to ſee how vain a thing it was to truſt to ſuch Confederates.

By Iſaiah the ſon of Amos] Heb. by the hand of Iſaiah, whom God uſed as a diſpenſer of this precious Treaſure.

Go, looſe the ſackcloth from off thy loins] i. e. Thy thick rough garment, ſuch as Prophets uſually wore, 2 Kings 1.8. Zech. 13.4. Matth. 3.4. Or elſe thy ſackcloth put on as a mourning-weed, either for ten Tribes lately carried captive: or elſe for the miſeries ready to fall ſhortly upon thine own people.

And put off thy ſhoo from thy foot] The Nudipedales in Moravia might aſwell a vouch Iſaiah for their founder, as the Carmelites do Elias.

And he did ſo] God is to be obeyed without ſciſcitation; his Commands, how unreaſonable ſoever they may ſeem, are not to be diſputed but diſpatched.

Walking naked] Not ſtark-naked, but ſtript as a priſoner, his Mantle or upper garment caſt off, See 1 Sam. 19.24. Act. 19.16. Mic. 1.8.

Ver. 3. Like as my ſervant Iſaiah] Servants are either Menial, or Magiſterial: Prophets and Preachers are of this latter ſort.

Hath walked naked and barefoot three years] i. e. Three dayes: a day for a year, as Ezek. 4.4, 5, 6. Tremelius rendreth the Text thus: hath walked naked and barefoot for a ſign and wonder of the third year againſt the Aegyptians, and againſt the Aethiopians, that is, for a ſign that the third year after this Propheſie, the Forces of the Egyptians and Ethiopians under the conduct of Tirhaka ſhall be worſted, ſlaughtered, and carried captive by the Aſſyrian Monarch. And this was preached not more to their ears then to their eyes, ad fidem faciendam, for more aſſurance.

Ver. 4. So ſhall the King of Aſſyria led away] As men uſe to lead or drive cattel, for ſo the Hebrew word Nahag importeth; ſo are poor captives led: and ſo ſhall the Lord alſo one day lead forth with or in company of the workers of iniquity (notorious offendors) all ſuch as turn aſide unto their crooked wayes, Hypocrites and diſſemblers: when as peace ſhall be upon Iſrael, upon the pure in heart, Pſalm 125.5.

Young and old] Young men are for action, old men for counſel.Conſilia ſenum, haſtae juvenum ſunt. Pindar. [non-Latin text not transcribed], They were all carried away together in a ſad and ſorry condition, little better (and ſometimes more bitter) then death it ſelf.

Even with their buttocks uncovered] Vel ad Iudibrium, vel ad libidinem hoſtium, for the enemies either to ſcorn at, or to feed their filthy eyes upon. Thus and for ſuch a purpoſe dealt the mitred fathers with the poor Albigenſes (thoſe ancient Proteſtants) in France; when they had forced them to take quarter for their lives, voluerunt Epiſcopi viros & mulieres nudos egredi, &c. And ſo Tilly dealt with the miſerable Citizens at the ſack of Magdeburg. And much worſe then ſo dealeth the Devil with all his wretched captives, whom be driveth away Hell-ward naked and barefoot with their buttocks uncovered; Diſceopertis natibus. the ſhame of their nakedneſs expoſed to publick view, for want of the white Rayment of Chriſts Righteouſneſs that they might be cloathed, Rev. 3.18.

Ver. 5. And they ſhall be afraid and aſhamed] They, that is, as many as confided in them, ſeeing themſelves thus confuted, ſhall be abaſhed and terrified, perterrefient at the fall of their Confederates, and their own approaching calamity.

Ver. 6. And the Inhabitant of this Iſle ſhall ſay, &c.] Judaea, though part of the Continent, is here called an Iſle or Iſland, (whereas it was indeed an inland) 1. Becauſe it was bounded on the Weſt with the Midland-ſea, and on the Eaſt with the Lake of Genneſaret. 2. Becauſe it was beſet with many enemies, and beaten upon by the waves of Wars from all parts, but eſpecially from Egypt and Babylon, which is called a ſea, chap. 21.1. See chap. 8.8. 3. Becauſe begirt with Gods favour, Venice is invironed with her embracing Neptune, to whom ſhe marrieth her ſelf with yearly nuptials, caſting a ring into the Sea. power and protection, which was greater ſecurity to it then the Sea is to Venice (which yet is media inſuperabilis unda) or then wooden walls can be to any Iſland.

Behold, ſuch is our expectation, &c.] Here's their ſhame, and well it might be: for if Hezekah relyed not upon the Egyptian for help againſt the Aſſyrian, yet the people did, as Rabſhakeb alſo could tell, 2 Kings 18.24.

And how ſhall we eſcape?] Here's their fear, ver. 5. How much more ſhall wicked men ſay thus at the laſt day?