Isaiah 17:1-3

3. AGAINST SYRIA-EPHRAIM AND ETHIOPIA-EGYPT

Isaiah 17-20

The prophecies contained in Isaiah 17-20. have this much in common, that they are directed against two double nations. For as here Syria and Ephraim belong together, so there Ethiopia and Egypt. Thus in the north and south the gaze of the Prophet falls on a double nation, and in each case the remoter nation is the more heterogeneous. Then all these prophecies point to the future of Assyria. But they do so in a very different sense. In Isaiah 17:0, Assyria appears as instrument for accomplishing the judgment on the neighboring enemy of Judah, Syria and Israel. But immediately thereafter (Isaiah 17:12-14) destruction is announced against Assyria itself, so that 17 can conclude with the words: “This is the portion of them that spoil us and the lot of them that rob us.” But Assyria threatened not merely Judah and its next neighbors. The terror of it went further: it extended into distant lands. To these belonged also Ethiopia. Therefore on this account the Prophet announces to Ethiopia, too, the impending danger proceeding from Assyria. And this announcement could so much the more find a place here as the Prophet at the same time had to announce the putting aside of this danger by the same overthrow of the Assyrians that (Isaiah 17:12-14) he holds up to view as the delivering event for Judah. Thus the Prophet in so far points away to a future of Assyria which is to it fatal, and on that account for Judah full of comfort. Hence these chapters involve the warning to fear neither Syria-Ephraim nor Assyria. We can say therefore, that the contents of Isaiah 17:0. correspond to the contents of the first and third part of the prophetic-cycle 7–12. For we find here everything that is set forth in extenso Isaiah 7:1 to Isaiah 9:6, and then again Isaiah 10:5 to Isaiah 11:16, given compactly in the brief space of one chapter. Regarding the period of their composition, we must ascribe 17 and 18 to the same time. For in both Assyria is spoken of in the same sense, i.e., the overthrow of Assyria is held up to view in both, and not the victory as in 19 and 20. But then in both passages this overthrow is spoken of in such a way that one sees the lines of perspective of both pictures of the future meet in the historical event that is described Isaiah 37:36 sqq. To this is added what Drechsler calls attention to, that chapter 18. has no superscription, but appears with its הוי, “woe,” to join on to the “woe” of Isaiah 17:12. Drechsler, indeed, urges the unity too strongly (in his Commentary, and Stud. u. Krit., 1847, p. 857 sqq.). Yet one don’t see why the Prophet should have set just Ethiopia parallel with Judah. This is only conceivable if chapter 18 was not conceived ad hoc, but was put here only as a parallel actually existing and, according to the reference of Isaiah 17:5-6, a fitting parallel. But, as already said, the two passages, as regards their origin, belong to one period. And inasmuch as, according to Isaiah 17:1-3, Damascus and Ephraim still stood intact, we must ascribe both chapters 17, 18, to the beginning of the reign of Ahaz, the time to which chapters Isaiah 7:1 to Isaiah 9:6 owe their origin. We would then have in our chapters a proof that Isaiah, at that time not only foresaw the significance of Assyria as an instrument of punishment, but also its destruction.

Chapters 19 and 20, also treat of the future of Assyria, but in the opposite sense: for chapter 19, holds up to the view of Egypt its destruction. Who will be the instrument of this destruction is not said. It is known only from Isa 17:16, 17 that it is the God of Israel that causes the ruin to fall on Egypt. But when, now, Isa 17:23 sqq., the view is displayed in the still more remote future of the most intimate friendship between Egypt and Assyria, and great salvation for both, so it results, by force of the contrast implied, that Assyria must previously have been the enemy and destroyer of Egypt. And this, then, is said in express words in chapter 20, which is related to chapter 19, as an explanatory sequel. Evidently, therefore, chapters 19, 20, involve for Judah the warning that confederacy with Egypt is of no avail against Assyria. The Lord has given Egypt inevitably into the hand of Assyria in the immediate future. From this we recognize that these chapters must have been written at a time when Judah needed such a warning against false reliance on the protection of Egypt against the danger that threatened on the side of Assyria. Such was the case in the time of Hezekiah. We learn from 28–32, that an “Egyptian policy” was the great theocratic error of the reign of Hezekiah. Moreover the date given Isaiah 20:1 (see comment in loc.), according to the Assyrian monuments, refers us to the year 711, the 17th year of Hezekiah, for the beginning, and Isaiah 20:3 to the year 708, as the period of the conclusion, and of the prophetic indication of that typical transaction. According to that, chapter 20 cannot have been written before the year 708 b. c., and the words, “and fought against Ashdod and took it,” Isaiah 17:1 b are, relatively, indeed, but not absolutely considered, an historical anticipation.

But our chapters have still a further peculiarity in common. That is to say, with exception of chapter 20, they are all of them comprehensive surveys, while chapter 20, as already said, only more nearly determines a chief point left indistinct in chapter 19. For the Prophet comprehends here, as in one look, the entire future of all the nations mentioned in these chapters, down into the remotest Messianic time, where all shall belong to the kingdom of peace that the Messiah shall found. Israel (and by implication Syria, comp. on “as the glory,” etc. Isaiah 17:3, and “a man,” Isaiah 17:7), Judah, Ethiopia, Egypt, Assyria, all of them shall with one accord serve the Lord, and in equal measure enjoy His blessing. Connected therewith is the fact that these chapters (20 excepted, for the reason given) form a total by themselves, in that they sketch, prophetic fashion, in grand brevity, a panorama of the future history of the nations in question. But as regards the relation of this second element, the Messianic to the first, the Assyrian, it must be observed that the former in chapters 18, 19, forms quite normally the conclusion. But in 17, the Assyrian element forms the conclusion, and indeed it is joined on in a loose and unconnected way. In Isaiah 17:9-11, the cause of the fall described Isaiah 17:4-6 is assigned in only an incidental way, so that the Messianic element (Isaiah 17:7-8) has, so to speak, a subsequent endorser in this reason assigned. Yet this style of adding the reason after describing the event has many examples. But the words Isaiah 17:12-14 certainly give the impression of being a later addition, yet one that in any case proceeds from the Prophet himself. Without this addition there would be wanting to 17, one of the two elements that characterize chapters 17–20. With it, chapter 17 not only becomes homogeneous with the following chapters, but also it becomes complete in itself (comp. Isaiah 17:14 b), and receives a bridge that unites it with chap. 18.

We may group the four chapters in the following fashion:—

a)     Prophecies that give warning not to be afraid either of Syria-Ephraim, or Assyria (17, 18).

α. Damascus and Ephraim mow and in time to come (18).

β. Ethiopia now and in time to come (18).

b)     Prophecies that give warning not to trust to false help against Assyria (19, 20).

α. Egypt now and in time to come (19).

β. The Assyrian captivity of Egypt (20).

__________________

a) Prophecies that give warning not to be afraid either of Syria-Ephraim or Assyria

Isa 17, 18

α) DAMASCUS AND EPHRAIM NOW AND IN TIME TO COME

17

א) The destruction of Damascus and Ephraim

Isaiah 17:1-3

1          The Burden of Damascus.

Behold, Damascus is taken away from being a city,

And it shall be a ruinous heap.

2     The cities of Aroer are forsaken:

They shall be for flocks,

1Which shall lie down and none shall make them afraid.

3     The fortress also shall cease from Ephraim,

And the kingdom from Damascus, and the remnant of Syria:They shall be as the glory of the children of Israel,Saith the Lord of hosts.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Isaiah 17:1. In this verse the m sound predominates in a way not to be mistaken.—The participle מוּסָר occurs again 1 Samuel 21:7.—The construction with מִן as e.g. וַיִּמְאָ‍ֽסְךָ מִמֶּלֶךְ 1 Samuel 15:23.—מְעִי is chosen for the sake of the paronomasia with מֵעִיר. It stands only here for the elsewhere usual עִי. [Imitated in Naegelsbach’s translation by: “verworfen als Stadt und wird eine Trummers tatat.—Tr.].—Also מַפָּלָה (of the same meaning as מַפֵּלָה Isaiah 23:13; Isaiah 25:2; and partly מַפֶּלֶת Ezekiel 26:15; Ezekiel 26:18, and often) occurs only here.

Isaiah 17:2, In this verse there occurs no m sound excepting מ in the last word. On the other hand the r, hissing and dental sounds predominate.—It is debatable whether ערי ע‍׳‍ is equivalent to בְּנוֹת ע׳ (compare עָרֵי חֶשְׁבּוֹן Joshua 13:17) or is to be construed as appositional genitive. I would not against the former of these explanations oppose what Gesenius (Thes. pag, 1074, comp. 1005) cites against himself, that Aroer was no metropolis. For even if it were not the capital of a land, it might still be the central point of a number of smaller cities or villages.—עזבות is = derelictae, desertae (Isaiah 17:9; Isaiah 6:12; Jeremiah 4:29).—רבץ ואין מחריד is a form of speech borrowed from Job (Job 11:19) and reproduced later by Zephaniah (Isaiah 3:13).

Isaiah 17:3. Notice the alliteration of the first half of the verse. As שְׁאָר is not ceteri, but reliqui, I regard it as more accurate to connect ושׁאר ארם with what follows than with what precedes.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. The Prophet makes the Syrian capital his starting point, announcing to it first that it will be reduced to a place of ruin (Isaiah 17:1). From there he turns to the territory of Israel, and traverses first east Jordan Israel to its extremest point (Isaiah 17:2), then passes over to west Jordan, and thence returns back to Damascus (Isaiah 17:3). Thus he describes a circuit, carries the destruction over Gilead to Ephraim and thence back to Damascus so that thus Ephraim becomes as Damascus and Damascus as Ephraim; thus both, as they are politically closely united, appear joined in a common ruin.

2. The burden of Damascus—heap.

Isaiah 17:1. מַשָּׂא דמשׂק, “Burden of Damascus,” is in so far an inexact expression as chap. 17 does not merely treat of a judgment against Damascus, but of a judgment upon Ephraim and Assyria. But the expression seems to be chosen for the sake of conformity with the other sections of the collection, chapters 13–23. But it must not here be construed in the sense of giving the contents; it is a simple nota, a mere designation to distinguish and mark a beginning. As regards the fulfilment, we see from Isaiah 8:4 that Isaiah sees the time near at hand when the plunder of Damascus shall be carried before the king of Assyria, and according to Isaiah 10:9 this capture has already resulted. Schrader (Die Keilinschriften und das A. T., p. 150 sq. u. 152 sq.) imparts from Layard’s inscriptions (London, 1851, Fol.), an inscription that is unfortunately somewhat obliterated, but is still plain enough to make known that Tiglath-Pileser, by means of an expedition lasting two years (according to Schrader, they were the years 733 and 732 B. C.; according to the list of regents, the thirteenth and fourteenth year of this king), destroyed the kingdom of Damascus. The inscription reads: “. … whose number cannot be numbered. … I caused to be beheaded;. … of (Bin) hadar, the palace of the father of Rezin (Ra-sun-ni, Ra-sun-nu) of Damascus, (situated on) inaccessible mountains. … I besieged, captured; 8000 inhabitants together with their property; Mitinti of Ascalon. … I led forth into captivity; five hundred (and eighteen, according to Smith) cities from sixteen districts of the Damascus land I desolated like a heap of rubbish.” But it is of course to be noticed that this catastrophe was only a temporary one. For Jeremiah 49:23-27 and Ezekiel 27:18 knew Damascus again as a city existing in their time. On the whole Damascus is almost the only one of all the cities of biblical antiquity that flourishes still down to the present day.

3. The cities of Aroer—afraid.

Isaiah 17:2. Three cities of Old Testament mention are called by the name Aroer: 1) a city in Judah (1 Samuel 30:28) which cannot by any means be meant here; 2) a city in the tribe of Gad, which according to Joshua 13:25 (comp. Judges 11:33) lay “before Rabbah; 3) a city in the tribe of Reuben, situated on the north bank of the Arnon (Deuteronomy 2:36; Joshua 12:2; Joshua 13:9; Joshua 13:16; Judges 11:26; 2 Kings 10:33, and often). But if the Prophet meant only one of the two Aroers, then we miss an element that is of importance in the connection of thought of our passage. Are both Aroers meant, then the Southern one, on the bank of Arnon, must be one of them. But in that case the words “cities of Arnon” involve the sense: the entire east Jordan territory. But also the etymological primary sense (עַרְעָר = nudus, “bare,” עֲרִירִי inops, “poor”) recommended the mention of the name of these cities. So that it thus seems to have been chosen for a threefold reason (see Text. and Gram.). From Damascus the judgment of God moves southward like a tempest or a hail cloud through Gilead to rebound from the mountain chain of Abarim and be deflected thereby westward across the Jordan into the territory of Ephraim. Thus all Gilead becomes unfitted for human habitation. Only herds of animals stop there, that can repose without fear of disturbance.—The occupation of a region by herds is also in other places named as the sign of a desert condition: Isaiah 17:10; Zephaniah 2:14, and often.

[In regard to “cities of Aroer,” J. A. A. says: “It is now commonly agreed that the place meant is the northern Aroer, east of Jordan, and that its cities are the towns around it, and perhaps dependent on it.”]

4. The fortress—of hosts.

Isaiah 17:3. The Prophet now takes Ephraim and Syria together. Of the former shall be done away all מִבְצָר (collective, “all defense”). Thereby the cities of Ephraim also cease to be cities (Isaiah 17:1). For in that no longer patriarchal but warlike time and region, whatever was without wall was a village. Comp. עִיר מִבְצָר “fenced cities,” opposed to כָּפָר or כֹּפֶר “hamlet, village,” 1 Samuel 6:18, and often. As, therefore, “The fortress ceases from Ephraim,” (‍‍נשׁבת מ׳ מא׳, recalls מוסר מעיר “rejected as city,” Isaiah 17:1), the end returns to the beginning, and with the following words “the kingdom of Damascus,” the Prophet actually arrives back in Damascus, whence he started out, so that he has thus described a circuit. With what art the Prophet intimates that not only Ephraim becomes as Damascus (by the נשׁבת מבצר), but also Damascus as Ephraim! Are the cities of Ephraim and Damascus become villages, then Damascus can neither maintain its ancient rank as a royal city, nor the cities of Ephraim their ancient glory Both must fall and go to ruin. “As the glory of the children of Israel” must, of course, be intended in the first place ironically. Ephraim had joined itself closely with Syria to the great terror of Judah (Isaiah 7:2; Isaiah 8:12). Isaiah shows here how this close political coalition will turn to their destruction, engulfing them in one common ruin. But when Isaiah 17:4 sqq. it is seen what will be the fate of the glory of Jacob, viz.: that it will return from the fallen estate of remoteness from God to the glory of nearness to God, then it will not appear an error if in “the remnant of Syria” is seen an allusion to “the remnant of Israel,” and in the likeness of name an intimation of a likeness of destiny that is to be hoped for: Comp. on אָדָם “a man,” Isaiah 17:7.

[In regard to the ironical and sarcastic meaning attached to the expression “the glory of Israel,” a notion as old as Jerome, J. A. A. says “it seems to mean simply what is left of their former glory.”]

Footnotes:

[1]And they shall lie down and there shall be no one making them afraid.