Isaiah 30:1-5

III.—THE THIRD WOE

Isaiah 30:0

1. THE SIN OF THOSE WHO SEEK HELP FROM EGYPT, NOT FROM JEHOVAH

Isaiah 30:1-5

1          Woe to the rebellious children, saith the Lord,

That take counsel, but not of me;And that 1cover with a covering, but not of my spirit,

          That they may add sin to sin:

2     That walk to go down into Egypt,

And have not asked at my mouth;To strengthen themselves in the strength of Pharaoh,And to trust in the shadow of Egypt!

3     Therefore shall the strength of Pharaoh be your shame,

And the trust in the shadow of Egypt your confusion.

4     For his princes 2were at Zoan,

And his ambassadors 3came to Hanes.

5     They were all ashamed of a people that could not profit them,

Nor be an help nor profit,But a shame, and also a reproach.

TEXTUAL AND GRAMMATICAL

Isaiah 30:1. If we take סוררים in a causative sense = making apostasy, which view is justified by the form of the word, (which is after the Pilel conjugation), and by its use elsewhere, (Lamentations 3:11), we can then join with it לעשׂות וגו׳ as the infinitive of nearer specification. This infinitive then expresses wherein and how far they are בנים סוררים (Isaiah 1:23; Isaiah 65:2).

Isaiah 30:2. The Kal. עוּז from which many derive עוֹז, does not occur. We find only Hiphil הֵעִיז, Isaiah 10:31; Exodus 9:19; Jeremiah 4:6; Jeremiah 6:1. The context too appears to me not to require by any means the signification “confugere and refugium,” as this meaning is contained in the following clause, and a repetition of the same thought cannot be expected. I prefer, therefore, to take עוֹז in the signification “to be strong” and מעוז, as it is. often used = munimentum, defence, protection (Isaiah 17:10; Isaiah 25:4; Isaiah 27:5, et saepe). חָסָה is confugere; it is found united with עַל Judges 9:15; Psalms 36:8; Psalms 57:2.

Isaiah 30:3. מַֽחֲסֶה = ) חָסוּת Isaiah 4:6; Isaiah 25:1; Isaiah 28:15; Isaiah 28:17), is ἅπ. λεγ.

Isaiah 30:5. הֹבִאישׁ is a mongrel form arising from הִבְאִישׁ הֹבִישׁ, the former of which itself proceeding from a confusion of the two roots יָבַשׁ and בּוֹשׁ, signifies pudorem produxit, to produce shame, to be ashamed, to come to disgrace, while הִבְאִישׁ denotes foetorem protulit, both together therefore signify “to produce stinking disgrace, or disgraceful stench, to make a stinking, disgraceful figure, therefore, ignominiously to come to shame.” All (Ewald, § 286, e) are disgraced on account of a people that does not profit them (the senders of the embassy), is not for help, nor for profit. This ולֹא להועיל strikes us as tautological. It is probably occasioned by the effort clearly apparent in this sentence to multiply the “L” and “O” sounds, and especially the combination of the two.

EXEGETICAL AND CRITICAL

1. The subject treated by the Prophet in these chapters is unfolded more and more fully, so as to be perfectly clear. What he had hitherto only hinted at, he now declares in plain terms: the alliance with Egypt is the sin against which he contends with all the force of his spirit. This alliance is no longer a subject of deliberation. It has already taken shape. An embassy to conclude this league is already on the way. The Prophet therefore utters another (the third) woe against the apostate people, because they form such purposes without the Lord, only to heap sin upon sin (Isaiah 30:1). They have gone down to Egypt without consulting the Lord, in order to find there increase of power, and protection (Isaiah 30:2). But power and protection shall be changed into disgrace (Isaiah 30:3). It was possible to try to invalidate this threatening of the Prophet by a denial of the facts. But he leaves no room for such contradiction. For, says he, the Jewish princes are already in Zoan, and will come to Hanes (Isaiah 30:4). Therefore, he repeats with emphasis his threatening: Israel will be ashamed of the Egyptian nation which can bring to the people of God no advantage, but only disgrace.

2. Woe to——a reproach.

Isaiah 30:1-5. הוי comp. on Isaiah 29:1. עשׂות עצה is = to execute a counsel (2 Samuel 17:23). ולא מני as Hosea 8:4. We had מַסֵּכָה25:7; Isaiah 28:20 (comp. מַסֶּכֶתJdg 16:13-14) in the signification “woven or plaited covering;” but in this chapter, Isaiah 30:22, (comp. Isaiah 42:17) the word has the signification “what is molten, cast.” That נסך מסכה signifies here (Isaiah 30:1) to form an alliance, is placed out of doubt by the context. But it is questionable whether tire expression originally denotes “to weave a web,” or “σπονδὴν σπἐνδεσθαι.” The latter is to me the more probable, not although, but because מסכה from נָסַךְ to pour, to cast, denotes a molten image. For it seems to me that the Prophet intends a double sense by the expression: libationem effundere and idolum fusile fundere. He hints therewith at the idolatrous character of such a league, which is a transgression of the first [second] commandment. This agrees very well with ולא רוחי, an expression which, both in sense and construction, is connected with ולא מני as we are to regard רוחי as dependent on the preposition מן. The clause that they may add sin to sin does not express the conscious, subjective design, but only affirms that the objective fact is of such a character as to warrant the conclusion as to the conscious design (comp. Amos 2:7; Jeremiah 44:8 et saepe). ספות comp. on Isaiah 29:1. ההלכים Isaiah 30:2 (apposition to בנים סוררים Isaiah 30:1) marks the going away, the terminus a quo,לרדתthe terminus ad quern. In ההלכים we must not press the notion of time, but only the notion of the word, i. e., the Prophet does not set forth that they are now going away (praesens), but states the simple fact of their going away. If we so understand the word, every appearance of a contradiction with Isaiah 30:4 disappears. שׁאל פי י׳׳ besides only Joshua 9:14 comp. Genesis 24:57. Isaiah 30:4 contains a proof which is introduced by כִּי. It appears to me that the Prophet supposes the attempt on the part of his hearers still to deny this league with Egypt which had been laid to their charge. He therefore says: Everything stated in verses 1–3 is true, for the ambassadors have been already in Zoan, and are now on the way to Hanes. היו is therefore the proper perfect; the imperfect יגיעו (comp. Genesis 28:12) stands for the designation of a fact yet incomplete, still in progress, i.e., the ambassadors are only about to reach Hanes. The accusative is accus, loci. How Isaiah could so speak is easily seen, if we do not forget that he was the Prophet of Jehovah, and that the Spirit of the Lord, whom the others excluded in their consultations (ver.1), assisted the Prophet. Men told him nothing at all of the embassy; assuredly the ambassadors themselves sent him no message, nor was a message sent by them communicated to him. But yet he knows that the ambassadors have actually arrived in Egypt. His mentioning the cities Zoan and Hanes is not to be pressed, i.e., he does not mean to mark precisely the exact points between which the ambassadors now are. He has other reasons for naming these cities. I do not comprehend how Delitzsch can say, “the Tanitic dynasty then bore rule, which preceded the Ethiopian: Tanis and Anysis were the two royal seats.” For after the middle of the 8th century B. C., the Ethiopian (the 25th) dynasty already bore rule (Duncker,Geschichte des Alterth. I p. 598). Hezekiah cannot therefore have formed an alliance with the predecessor of the Ethiopian dynasty. Delitzsch seems here to rely too much on Herodotus, II., 137 init., where a king Anysis of Anysis, i.e., Hanes, is named as predecessor of the Ethiopian Sabakos. Moreover, Ewald’s assumption resting on Herodotus, II. 141, that the Egyptian king, with whom Sennacherib had to do, was the Ethiopian Sethon, priest of Hephaestos, who was at the same time ruler of lower and middle Egypt with Tanis for his royal seat, is refuted by Assyrian monuments. For, although the first inscriptions that mention the name Tirhaka (Assyrian Tar-ku-u), belong to the time after Sennacherib, yet the monuments of Sennacherib expressly name his Egyptian opponent “king of Meroe” (Schrader,die Keilinsehriften und das A. T., p. 203), which could not possibly be said of a Tanitic king. When Isaiah here mentions Zoan (situated in the Delta of the Nile, southwest of Pelusium), he is probably led to do so, because this city, since the end of the second millennium before Christ, had been the capital of the kingdom. For till the expulsion of Hyksos, Memphis, then Thebes, had been the capital; then, from the epoch mentioned, Zoan, (comp. Dunker,Geschichte des Alterth, I. p. 598). Isaiah had already (Isaiah 29:11) mentioned Hanes (Egyptian Hnçs, Ehnes, afterwards Herakleopolis, situated in the neighborhood of lake Moeris), because it had been last after Tanis the royal seat of a native dynasty (comp. Herodotus, II, 137). If then Zoan and Hanes are the cities which had last been royal seats, and if they were known as such to the Prophet, there is really no reason with Hitzig, Knobel and others to adopt the reading חִנָּם יִיגָֽעוּ, which lies at the basis of the Alexandrine version, but has in it only a very uncertain support. It is likewise unnecessary, and does not correspond to the context to refer the suffix in מַלְאָכָיו to the Egyptian king as having vainly summoned the warrior caste by his messengers (Herodotus, II. 141). It is most natural to refer the suffix in מלאכיו to the same subject to which the suffix in שׂריו belongs. If the Prophet wished the suffix in מלאכיו to have a different reference from that in שׂריו, he must have made this known in a way not to be misunderstood.

Footnotes:

[1]make an alliance.

[2]have been.

[3]come.